Stan Fischler's latest take on the lockout

[CarlRacki]

It would take a lot of number crunching because I am saying that a luxury tax would stop spending above a certain level all together. However, in order to actually put forth what kind of luxury tax would work effectively it would take a ton of number crunching.

"A luxury tax can discourage such behavior. It can punish such behavior. It can even lessen it. But it cannot stop it. If an owner is willing or can afford to suffer the punishment, he will."

Well that's what you are looking for in order to solve the problem. A luxury tax will discourage, lessen and punish spending over a certain amount, let's say $38 million. What is wrong with that? The only problem here is the smaller market teams who are losing money and/or don't have enough to sign their own players...a luxury tax will solve both those problems. And don't give me ******** like, 'oh a luxury tax is inflationary', that's what Bettman would tell you and it's wrong. This brings me back to the point about how it would take a ton of number crunching...if the NHL went through all the numbers they could figure out a luxury tax level that would help small market teams without allowing them to spend out of control. If the luxury tax prevents the top team from spending out of control and the amount that gets kicked back is not too much or too little, than it works perfectly. And you know, if an owner is willing to or can afford to spend over the luxury tax, what's wrong with that. What's wrong with putting money into your team? Now I understand the situation with the Yankees is a bad one, because the tax doesn't work because their owner is so willing to spend no matter what...but in order to prevent that type of situation you could put a cap above the luxury tax. A cap simply to prevent big market teams from spending 70 million when the rest of the league is afraid to go above 40. Your situation with Team A signing a player to $8 million would be null because not only would they be paying a tax, but if you put a cap after the tax than you would prevent the biggest teams from setting the whole market too high for half the league.

Start a luxury tax at $38 million and put a hard cap at $48-$50 million. Why not? Small market teams aren't priced completely out of the market as they are now, but owners are also rewarded for making money and can spend a little more than the average team if they want to.

And about a post you made earlier, there are 2 distinct times in which Bettman has said the NHL will not accept a NBA style cap, or presumable a soft cap of any kind.

NHL won't accept a luxury tax: http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcripts/bettman_120904.html
Also in that same set of transcipts is where Bettman said the NHL won't accept a deal like the NBA has. I read that yesterday though and don't feel like going back through there and looking for it. Also as another poster said, he has stated they won't accept a system like the NBA on the fan in NY, you can go to their site and they usually have clips of all the major interviews. So there are a couple of places where, yes, Bettman does say they won't accept a NBA-style cap or even a luxury tax.

Again, where in that link does Bettman say they will not accept an NBA-style cap? He states they don't believe a luxury tax will solve their problems, but says nothing regarding an NBA-type system. Sorry, keep trying. If there are several places where Bettman says otherwise, as you claim, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find it. Best of luck.
As for the luxurty tax, you're ignoring simple economic principle. I won't completely rehash the explanation I've already given because no one has proven it wrong, but I'll make a couple simple points:
1. If a luxury tax system is established to give tax revenue to smaller-market teams so that they can spend more on payroll, it is inherently inflationary. It's not ******, it's Economics 101. It will put money into the player compensation pool that otherwise would not exist, thus driving up salaries. There won't be more players in the league, but there will be more money for player salaries, hence larger salaries. Can't you see that? It's akin to the U.S. Treasury printing more money.
2. The luxury tax does not stop teams from spending out of control. It merely discourages it. A cap is the only thing that would stop it. A luxury tax is a speed bump. A cap is a gate.
3. How would a $70 million cap would prevent big-spending teams from setting the market too high? Only two teams in the league spend that much now and the market is already too high.

 

[txomisc]

i believe that if the players came out with a reasonable luxury tax at 38 million followed by a hard cap at 50 million the owners would sign up. I have always thought this would the be optimal solution. The problem is not only will the players not take a hard cap at 50 million but they are unable to negotiate a hard cap at ANY level

what would be great would be a luxury tax starting at 38 at 40 cents on the dollar followed by an increase in that tax to 75+ cents on the dollar for everything over 44 million followed by an absolute shut door hard cap at 50

It would take a lot of number crunching because I am saying that a luxury tax would stop spending above a certain level all together. However, in order to actually put forth what kind of luxury tax would work effectively it would take a ton of number crunching.

"A luxury tax can discourage such behavior. It can punish such behavior. It can even lessen it. But it cannot stop it. If an owner is willing or can afford to suffer the punishment, he will."

Well that's what you are looking for in order to solve the problem. A luxury tax will discourage, lessen and punish spending over a certain amount, let's say $38 million. What is wrong with that? The only problem here is the smaller market teams who are losing money and/or don't have enough to sign their own players...a luxury tax will solve both those problems. And don't give me ******** like, 'oh a luxury tax is inflationary', that's what Bettman would tell you and it's wrong. This brings me back to the point about how it would take a ton of number crunching...if the NHL went through all the numbers they could figure out a luxury tax level that would help small market teams without allowing them to spend out of control. If the luxury tax prevents the top team from spending out of control and the amount that gets kicked back is not too much or too little, than it works perfectly. And you know, if an owner is willing to or can afford to spend over the luxury tax, what
's wrong with that. What's wrong with putting money into your team? Now I understand the situation with the Yankees is a bad one, because the tax doesn't work because their owner is so willing to spend no matter what...but in order to prevent that type of situation you could put a cap above the luxury tax. A cap simply to prevent big market teams from spending 70 million when the rest of the league is afraid to go above 40. Your situation with Team A signing a player to $8 million would be null because not only would they be paying a tax, but if you put a cap after the tax than you would prevent the biggest teams from setting the whole market too high for half the league.

Start a luxury tax at $38 million and put a hard cap at $48-$50 million. Why not? Small market teams aren't priced completely out of the market as they are now, but owners are also rewarded for making money and can spend a little more than the average team if they want to.

And about a post you made earlier, there are 2 distinct times in which Bettman has said the NHL will not accept a NBA style cap, or presumable a soft cap of any kind.

NHL won't accept a luxury tax: http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcripts/bettman_120904.html
Also in that same set of transcipts is where Bettman said the NHL won't accept a deal like the NBA has. I read that yesterday though and don't feel like going back through there and looking for it. Also as another poster said, he has stated they won't accept a system like the NBA on the fan in NY, you can go to their site and they usually have clips of all the major interviews. So there are a couple of places where, yes, Bettman does say they won't accept a NBA-style cap or even a luxury tax.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

1. If a luxury tax system is established to give tax revenue to smaller-market teams so that they can spend more on payroll, it is inherently inflationary. It's not ******, it's Economics 101. It will put money into the player compensation pool that otherwise would not exist, thus driving up salaries. There won't be more players in the league, but there will be more money for player salaries, hence larger salaries. Can't you see that? It's akin to the U.S. Treasury printing more money.
2. The luxury tax does not stop teams from spending out of control. It merely discourages it. A cap is the only thing that would stop it. A luxury tax is a speed bump. A cap is a gate.
3. How would a $70 million cap would prevent big-spending teams from setting the market too high? Only two teams in the league spend that much now and the market is already too high.

1. It is not established to give tax revenue to smaller market teams. That is a nice little byproduct.
It is designed to decrease demand pressures on salaries. Logic tells us that rich teams will see much less interest in chasing after free agents if they have to pay $10 Million for a $5 Million player. This means that smaller teams won't have to compete with as many bidders for their players.
2. It doesn't outright outlaw spending over a threshold. But it will discourage it a HELLUVALOT MORE than what we currently see. And when the FEW teams that do go over the threshold spend money, small teams will get some money to help them retain the players they do have.

 

[CarlRacki]

1. It is not established to give tax revenue to smaller market teams. That is a nice little byproduct.
It is designed to decrease demand pressures on salaries. Logic tells us that rich teams will see much less interest in chasing after free agents if they have to pay $10 Million for a $5 Million player. This means that smaller teams won't have to compete with as many bidders for their players.
2. It doesn't outright outlaw spending over a threshold. But it will discourage it a HELLUVALOT MORE than what we currently see. And when the FEW teams that do go over the threshold spend money, small teams will get some money to help them retain the players they do have.

1. Whether its primary goal is to give money to lower revenue clubs is irrelevant. As you admit, that's what would occur and the result would be salary inflation. It's simple economics. More money in the compensation pool equals higher salaries.
As for the "logic" at work, that's the same logic MLB used in their latest CBA. It hasn't worked. The Yankees, BoSox, Mets and Angels continue to spend like drunken sailors irregardless of the tax. The Yankees owed a $25 million tax at the end of this season. How did they respond? By adding $34 million to their starting rotation. The BoSox owed $3.1 million. How did they respond? By giving $40 million to their catcher, giving $25 million to a 9-13 starter and buying a $40 million shortstop. Alrerady getting close to the threshold, the Mets are so afraid of the tax they've spent $194 million in the free agent market so far (which will add $57 million to next year's payroll). Does this logic add up for you?
2. I've admitted it might curb some spending, but that's neither the issue the other poster and I were discussing (he claimed it could bring cost certainty) and it's not what the owners want. They want cost certainty and a tax cannot provide it. If anything, there's a risk it will increase spending because of its inflationary nature.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

1. Whether its primary goal is to give money to lower revenue clubs is irrelevant. As you admit, that's what would occur and the result would be salary inflation. It's simple economics. More money in the compensation pool equals higher salaries.
As for the "logic" at work, that's the same logic MLB used in their latest CBA. It hasn't worked. The Yankees, BoSox, Mets and Angels continue to spend like drunken sailors irregardless of the tax. The Yankees owed a $25 million tax at the end of this season. How did they respond? By adding $34 million to their starting rotation. The BoSox owed $3.1 million. How did they respond? By giving $40 million to their catcher, giving $25 million to a 9-13 starter and buying a $40 million shortstop. Alrerady getting close to the threshold, the Mets are so afraid of the tax they've spent $194 million in the free agent market so far (which will add $57 million to next year's payroll). Does this logic add up for you?
2. I've admitted it might curb some spending, but that's neither the issue the other poster and I were discussing (he claimed it could bring cost certainty) and it's not what the owners want. They want cost certainty and a tax cannot provide it. If anything, there's a risk it will increase spending because of its inflationary nature.

1. No way dude.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the Luxury tax acts as a suppressent to Demand, which will LOWER salaries.
Don;t talk to me about economics if you're going to ignore economic facts.
And don't compare this to baseball.
I'm talking about a dollar for dollar cap at $40 Million.
I'll go through this again, if you like, even though the salary cap fetish crowd continues to ingore it.
The Red WIngs are constantly mentioned as one of the bad guys that put salaries where they are.
In the last two years, recognizing the window for winning was coming to a close, Illitch went balls out to keep his team together and bring in new blood.
He lost about $30 Million.
Over two years, he was about $60 million over the threshold. So add, at a dollar for dollar ratio, $60 Million in losses.
Do you think Mike Illitch would throw $90 Million out the window?
DO you think he'd have signed Hatcher? Or Whitney?
No how. No way.
Teams like St. Louis and LA got all hot and heavy about salaries and they've realized it was unsustainable.
Reports showed that Mike Illitch was reaching that point as well (though he did send mixed messages with the Lidstrom contract, knowing the CBA was coming, why did he pay Lidstrom $10M a year?).
Add in a punitive luxury tax, and they're gonna slow the spending down.
Illitch, to break even, going two rounds into the playoffs, can only have a salary budget of about $60 Million.
That means, with a dollar for dollar LT at $40M, he can only have $50 million worth of contracts.
That's a far cry from the $75 Million he spent last year,
And considering the Wings would have to trim payroll, they can no longer bank on two rounds of playoffs.
They'd probably need to bank on the 82 game season. Which, of course, reduces their salary budget even more.

Teams like St. Louis and LA will also drastically reduce spending.
About the only team that I could even fathom spending at it's old pace is the Rangers and possibly Toronto.
But I don't see the situation as elastic as baseball.


A luxury tax (set at the right number) is a salary drag first, and a revenue sharing plan second.
Do it wrong, like in baseball, and nothing gets fixed.

I'm all for bringing salaries down.
I just don't like the idea of an inflexible cap.
When owners and GMs decide they can go over the cap, they should have the ability to do so, so long as they pay the price.

2. Sorry for jumping in. I'll just shut up now.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

If the players agree to a capped system under which they're guaranteed a certain percentage of revenue, there will be no need to trust the owners. Negotiate a CBA that clearly defines the revenues then hire independent auditors annually to determine how much goes into the players pot. It works pretty well for the NFL and there's no reason to believe it couldn't for the NHL.

I see what you're saying, but if there's going to be a cap, there'll probably be a minimum. And the question then is how many owners will claim they're losing money with regards to the cap and that they need to lower payroll to the floor level? I'll bet that Wirtz and Jacobs leads the charge. And that's the problem. Every cheap skate owner will try to keep a payroll minimum to maximize profits and not care about the team because they're making money. And that's the problem I have a cap. It allows cheap owners to be even cheaper and rip off fans even more. I don't mind paying more money if the product is good. But I have a problem paying money if the product looks like something I leave in a toilet........

 

[CarlRacki]

I see what you're saying, but if there's going to be a cap, there'll probably be a minimum. And the question then is how many owners will claim they're losing money with regards to the cap and that they need to lower payroll to the floor level? I'll bet that Wirtz and Jacobs leads the charge. And that's the problem. Every cheap skate owner will try to keep a payroll minimum to maximize profits and not care about the team because they're making money. And that's the problem I have a cap. It allows cheap owners to be even cheaper and rip off fans even more. I don't mind paying more money if the product is good. But I have a problem paying money if the product looks like something I leave in a toilet........

I understand your point, but I'd argue there's nothing to stop those owners from spending the minimum now. Bill Wirtz is under no obligation to spend $10 million right now, much less a $34 million minimum. His team would be even worse if he did, but he could do it under the present system. At least with a salary floor, he'd be required to spend a minimum that's in reasonable proximity to the maximum. correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about a difference of less than $5 million between the currently proposed maximum and minimum payrolls?

 

[me2]

i believe that if the players came out with a reasonable luxury tax at 38 million followed by a hard cap at 50 million the owners would sign up. I have always thought this would the be optimal solution. The problem is not only will the players not take a hard cap at 50 million but they are unable to negotiate a hard cap at ANY level

what would be great would be a luxury tax starting at 38 at 40 cents on the dollar followed by an increase in that tax to 75+ cents on the dollar for everything over 44 million followed by an absolute shut door hard cap at 50

Throw in

A) a loss of picks as an addition penalty on high budgets because money doesn't hurt some of these guys as much as losing picks.(

2nd at $40m
2nd+3rd at $42.5m
1st at $45m
1st + 2nd at $47.5m
2 x 1sts at $50m
2 x 1sts + 2nd at $53.5m
2 x 1sts + 2 x 2nd at $57m
3 x 1sts at $60m
etc


B) compensation for lost UFAs to be paid by the buyer to the loser as opposed to made up compensatory picks being inserted

C) 50c to $1 $37.5m, $1 for $1 from $42.5m & $2 for $1 from $50m to a hard cap at $60m, $3 for $1 at $60m etc.


and its getting close.

 

[Ghost of Dale Hunter]

The only issue I have with the owner's proposal is that their proposal brings hockey back to the 1950's once again. Fact of the matter is that there are some owners who are really good owners and are open and honest with the players in terms of money that they make. However, for every honest owner, you get a Bill Wirtz and a Jeremy Jacobs. Those two couldn't be trusted if your life depended on them.

Fact of the matter is this. The good owners are far outnumbered by the bad owners. Because of that, players aren't going to trust the owners. Let me ask all of you a question. When you take a look at the owner's negotiating committee, why is it that no one from the Toronto Maple Leafs, Philadelphia Flyers, Detroit Red Wings, etc...aren't represented? Why is it that the owner's team consists of Harley Hotchkiss, Lou Lamorello, Jeremy Jacobs, Craig Leppert? Why is it that none of the big spending teams are represented? To me, that speaks in volumes. If an Ed Snider or Mike Illitch were on the team, then the owners say would carry some weight.

Fact is this. Bettman's goal is to split the union. That's all what it is. Once that's done, then everything else falls into place. I do like what Ted Saskin said awhile back when he asked Bill Daly to submit the list of teams that are losing money, but Daly refused. If the NHL is claiming that the bloodletting is so severe, then why didn't they release the names of the franchises who are losing money? Once again, that also speaks in volumes.

In order for this deal to get done, it's going to require some forward thinking businessmen and players. I still believe they should have brought in a mediator though because the mediator would have been able to cut through the bs by both sides and get an agreement done that's acceptable to both parties.

First rule of Labor management - you can respect the owner or manager, but remember he is the owner/manager. He is there for him, not you. Never TRUST management

I think people are missing managements point. We talk like an owner losing 1 million is ok. That is still 1 MILLION dollars. That is never ok to lose.

Te owners have a right to expect a profit. The players have a right to earn a solid living. This is not where the league is at and that is the problem.

The players will break, I guarantee it.

 

[Crosbyfan]

First rule of Labor management - you can respect the owner or manager, but remember he is the owner/manager. He is there for him, not you. Never TRUST management

I think people are missing managements point. We talk like an owner losing 1 million is ok. That is still 1 MILLION dollars. That is never ok to lose.

Te owners have a right to expect a profit. The players have a right to earn a solid living. This is not where the league is at and that is the problem.

The players will break, I guarantee it.

Do owners that mismanage their businesses have a right to expect a profit?

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

Do owners that mismanage their businesses have a right to expect a profit?

No, but smart managers try to find ways to minimize their risk of losses. That's what the owners are trying to do with a cap.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

No, but smart managers try to find ways to minimize their risk of losses. That's what the owners are trying to do with a cap.

What a cap does is prevent owners from making mistakes. If an owner signs a player to a deal and said player turns out to be a bust, ooops, we'll just cut him so we can free up his salary and sign someone else.

So, essentially, a cap rewards an owner. And I have a problem with a system that rewards ineptitude. That's the problem with a cap.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Again, where in that link does Bettman say they will not accept an NBA-style cap? He states they don't believe a luxury tax will solve their problems, but says nothing regarding an NBA-type system. Sorry, keep trying. If there are several places where Bettman says otherwise, as you claim, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find it. Best of luck.
As for the luxurty tax, you're ignoring simple economic principle. I won't completely rehash the explanation I've already given because no one has proven it wrong, but I'll make a couple simple points:
1. If a luxury tax system is established to give tax revenue to smaller-market teams so that they can spend more on payroll, it is inherently inflationary. It's not ******, it's Economics 101. It will put money into the player compensation pool that otherwise would not exist, thus driving up salaries. There won't be more players in the league, but there will be more money for player salaries, hence larger salaries. Can't you see that? It's akin to the U.S. Treasury printing more money.
2. The luxury tax does not stop teams from spending out of control. It merely discourages it. A cap is the only thing that would stop it. A luxury tax is a speed bump. A cap is a gate.
3. How would a $70 million cap would prevent big-spending teams from setting the market too high? Only two teams in the league spend that much now and the market is already too high.

1. It is ******** because you are not considering both sides of a luxury tax system. Will it increase spending by small market teams? Yes. But at the same time, will it decrease spending by big market teams? YES. If the luxury tax is implemented correctly, as I have said is vital, than what will happen is the decrease in spending by the leagues teams will offset the increase in spending by the leagues teams that are taking in tax money. To apply a simple formula: in the correct luxury tax system, increase in payroll spending by markets receiveing money - decrease in payroll spending by teams over or at the luxury tax = 0, as in zero change in overall payroll spending. Now if they cut salaries so that current salaries equaled let's say 60% of net revenue, than the right luxury tax system would keep the total spending at 60%. As opposed to where they are now, sure certain teams would spend more. At the same time, certain teams will spend less. It levels the payrolls throughout the league while at the same time keeping total salaries at a certain level.

2. Well the fact that a luxury tax would stop teams in the NHL from spending is something we will disagree on. I mean, I don't see any team in the NHL with the kind of spending power the Yankees have. But I guess theoretically, you are right, a luxury tax can't absolutely stop a team from spending. But, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that I said the luxury tax system would work especially if there was a hard cap beyond the tax threshold. If you put a hard cap at $48 million this would prevent the biggest markets from spending whatever they want despite the luxury tax. This would prevent a situation like baseball has with the Yankees. This would prevent the Wings from spending $60 million on payroll and just accepting that they will have to pay $40 million in taxes. So I ask you again, why not? Why wouldn't that work?

3. I never said anything about a $70 million cap.

I know that link only says they won't accept a luxury tax, that was why I wrote the words "nhl won't accept a luxury tax", before the link. Sorry if I mislead you. As for a link to Bettman talking about the NBA-style cap, I can't find where I read it yesterday and I am not looking anymore.

 

[Chayos]

The last proposal by the owners was a joke. The owners are taking positive points in the proposal (rollbacks) and then adding them onto their harsh proposal. The owners only asked for a 10% rollback in the beginning and now they are gunning for 20%. The owners are taking taking taking and not giving anything.

You seem to think that the owners we countering the players salary roll back with a cap and a roll back. The owner accepted the players offer of a salary roll back with a different slary roll back structure.

The owner also in the same proposal countered the players offer of a minimal taxbased system with a revenue sharing system. This is a completely different issue than the salary roll back. Players are up in arms, but the reality is their offer would have done nothing to slow salry growth period.

The players have to realize that at some point they will be actually have to go to work and work under their "EMPLOYERS" rules just like the rest of us working smucks. The Rest of the world lives in a reality that says the owners of the business we work at have to make money for us to continue to have employment. This is something that the players seem to miss in this whole mess. Why do thye want to kill the goose that is laying a big golden egg for them.

All i have to say is the owners better stand firm and make those greedy players rot. I am for a union as much as the next man but when you have some over paid whining player complain about his rightsgets more press than workers in china and other 3rd world nations people with serious work issues who really need unions get. What horrible thing have the woenrs inflicted on teh players that gives them the right to think they are the 2nd coming of god.

 

[PecaFan]

What a cap does is prevent owners from making mistakes. If an owner signs a player to a deal and said player turns out to be a bust, ooops, we'll just cut him so we can free up his salary and sign someone else.

So, essentially, a cap rewards an owner. And I have a problem with a system that rewards ineptitude. That's the problem with a cap.

That's not a cap you're describing, that's non-guaranteed contracts, with the added proviso that cut players don't count against a cap.

*If* those exceptions are made, then yes, the cap is useless. But you're making a huge leap to assume that sort of thing will be possible. There's been no indication of any sort of plan of this nature.

Caps *create* responsibility, not avoid it. They force teams to live long term with their financial mistakes, instead of just spending more to erase them.

 

[Lorenzo1000]

Luxury tax/ Cap Proposal

+ $38 million- $41,999,999 50 cents on the dollar tax

+ $42 million- $44,999,999 75 cents on the dollar tax

+ $45 million- $47,999,999 $1 per dollar tax

$48 million Hard cap, any taxes that take you over the hard cap do not count towards payroll.

Rookie Cap, 4 years at $850,000, bonuses maximum at 50% of salary figure.

Arbitration available at age 26 or six years experience in league with minimum 360 games played (some kind of allowance for goalies, ie. dressed games would count).
Both players and teams could request arbitration but only once every 2 years and it would be a choice between the players amount or the owner's amount, nothing in between.

Qualifying offers set at 75%, which the player has the right to refuse.

Outright free agency at age 29 or 10 years experience, minimum 600 games played.

This all sounds fair to me.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Luxury tax/ Cap Proposal

+ $38 million- $41,999,999 50 cents on the dollar tax

+ $42 million- $44,999,999 75 cents on the dollar tax

+ $45 million- $47,999,999 $1 per dollar tax

$48 million Hard cap, any taxes that take you over the hard cap do not count towards payroll.

Rookie Cap, 4 years at $850,000, bonuses maximum at 50% of salary figure.

Arbitration available at age 26 or six years experience in league with minimum 360 games played (some kind of allowance for goalies, ie. dressed games would count).
Both players and teams could request arbitration but only once every 2 years and it would be a choice between the players amount or the owner's amount, nothing in between.

Qualifying offers set at 75%, which the player has the right to refuse.

Outright free agency at age 29 or 10 years experience, minimum 600 games played.

This all sounds fair to me.

If your name is Bill Gates, or a notch below, and you do not mind losing $5 million, $10 million or $20 million to win that year or even a few years, shrug at spending that kind of money, how would this restore competitive balance?

 

[NYIsles1*]

If your name is Bill Gates, or a notch below, and you do not mind losing $5 million, $10 million or $20 million to win that year or even a few years, shrug at spending that kind of money, how would this restore competitive balance?

It does nothing for competitive balance.

A ten, twenty or even thirty million dollar operating loss for a hockey team owned by a multi-billion dollar company is not going to deter them from spending.

I have no problem with owners who's hockey teams's make revenue, but overall the business needs ecomomic parity to survive regardless of whether an owner is a billionaire or not.

 

[I in the Eye]

how would this restore competitive balance?

Jaded-Fan, what does 'competitive balance' mean to you? I assume equal chance at being competitive…

If so, there would have to be much more than equal expenditure on players to achieve this goal... Those with more money will still be able to afford better scouts, better coaches, better GM's, etc... To truly create a 'competitive balance', all hockey inputs would need to be the same...

Equal expenditure on players + equal expenditure on coaches + equal expenditure on scouts + equal revenues + equal ‘other hockey-related’ expenses + equal number of tickets sold + equal ticket prices, etc, etc....

Doesn't the quest for 'competitive balance' suggest that all inputs would need to be balanced (i.e. equal) in order to achieve this goal? The Rangers could still buy better scouts, and therefore, draft better players - giving them an advantage... Or should scouts also have a hard salary cap, so that a small market team can afford the same scouts? And the Rangers can potentially sell their tickets for more $, thus creating more revenue, and thus, being able to buy a faster and more comfortable team airplane to make travel much easier for the players - giving the Rangers another competitive advantage... Therefore, should teams also have a cap as to how much their ticket prices should be, and how many fans they let watch a game, and how much the owner is able to personally invest into his team?

The list goes on and on... Simply giving each team equal access to players does not create 'competitive balance'... IMO, this is a myth... Those teams that are smarter and/or have more money will always have a 'competitive advantage'...

The search for ‘competitive advantage’ is an important business activity… Some (if not most) teams will always try to become superior to the others… 'Vive La Difference'... Those with less money, have to be more efficient, effective, and smarter… Those with more money can afford to make more mistakes (they can take more risks)… To seek ‘competitive balance’, if we are trying to constrain those with money, then to be fair (and more importantly, if we truly want to achieve ‘competitive balance’ it will be absolutely necessary), to also constrain those who are smarter… If a scout does a better than average job drafting players, vanish him from the league – as this is not fair to the other teams… Or perhaps, give his drafted player to a team who drafted a bust, and give the scout a fine to ensure that he doesn’t do it again…

To achieve ‘competitive balance’, we’ve got to strip away everything that gives another team a distinct advantage… Why is it ok to constrain $, but not smarts – when both play a significant role in determining ‘advantage’? Why is one acceptable, but the other taboo? Or is the goal of a hard salary cap to constrain both - only Bettman doesn't want to say this? Or is this not a goal in itself, but an unfortunate bi-product of making owner investments much more attractive? IMO, a hard cap also constrains 'smarts'... but it doesn't go far enough... IMO, if the league truly wants 'competitive balance', they are going to have to go much, much farther than just a hard cap... They are going to have to eliminate all possible team advantages that span far beyond player salaries... The same exercise and training equipment and facilities? The same team travel distances? The same draft list?, etc.

Personally, I’m a fan of ‘competitive advantage’ - getting everything you can out of everything you’ve got to get an upper hand on a competitor… IMO, this makes for a much better league… I do support a soft cap or a strict luxury tax though, to make life easier for the smaller teams – to help compensate for perhaps lower ‘franchise competence’ and for being in a micro-market (lower $)… I’m all for helping the ‘victims’… If they are victims of their own incompetence or victims of circumstance is open to debate… But nonetheless, I wouldn’t want to severely punish those that have a competitive advantage in the process – there must be a balance, IMO, for the NHL to even somewhat resemble what we remember it to be in our minds... With 'competitive balance', we are going into unchartered territory...

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I-in-the-eye:

Long and short of it:

I realize that things will never be entirely level, however allowing some teams to outspend others by many multiples, and that figure is only widening, so much skews the game to make it no longer be a viable sport in my book.

Spend more on coaches, scouting, etc, fine with me. But keep what is spoent on players in a relatively fair range to keep each team with a fair chance to win. I can live with imbalance elsewhere.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

First rule of Labor management - you can respect the owner or manager, but remember he is the owner/manager. He is there for him, not you. Never TRUST management

I think people are missing managements point. We talk like an owner losing 1 million is ok. That is still 1 MILLION dollars. That is never ok to lose.

Te owners have a right to expect a profit. The players have a right to earn a solid living. This is not where the league is at and that is the problem.

The players will break, I guarantee it.

Hey, I have no qualms about owners losing money if they are bad owners. I don't see why any owner should be rewarded for being a bad owner. That always bothers me. If they want to be a bad owner or if they want to be a poor owner and skinflint the fans of their teams, then they deserve to not make any money,

 

[I in the Eye]

I-in-the-eye:

Long and short of it:

I realize that things will never be entirely level, however allowing some teams to outspend others by many multiples, and that figure is only widening, so much skews the game to make it no longer be a viable sport in my book.

Spend more on coaches, scouting, etc, fine with me. But keep what is spoent on players in a relatively fair range to keep each team with a fair chance to win. I can live with imbalance elsewhere.

If I provided you with compelling evidence that 'discrepency in competence' determines the success or failure between competitors so much more so than 'discrepency in money', would you support a 'competency' cap instead of a 'salary' cap in your belief that the league should have 'competitive balance'?

If I can prove that money is not the most important determining factor for success or failure (but rather, by far, competence is), would you agree that in the quest for 'competitive balance', you would support a 'competence' cap long before a 'salary' cap? If I provide such evidence, would you admit that a 'salary cap' is not the best (or even good) way to achieve 'competitive balance'?

If you are willing to admit it, what evidence would you specifically want to see? What specifically would change your belief?

 

[thinkwild]

If I provided you with compelling evidence that 'discrepency in competence' determines the success or failure between competitors so much more so than 'discrepency in money', would you support a 'competency' cap instead of a 'salary' cap in your belief that the league should have 'competitive balance'?

If I can prove that money is not the most important determining factor for success or failure (but rather, by far, competence is), would you agree that in the quest for 'competitive balance', you would support a 'competence' cap long before a 'salary' cap? If I provide such evidence, would you admit that a 'salary cap' is not the best (or even good) way to achieve 'competitive balance'?

If you are willing to admit it, what evidence would you specifically want to see? What specifically would change your belief?

LOL, a competency cap, I like it.

 

[CarlRacki]

What a cap does is prevent owners from making mistakes. If an owner signs a player to a deal and said player turns out to be a bust, ooops, we'll just cut him so we can free up his salary and sign someone else.

You're assuming that a cap would necessitate non-guaranteed contracts. That's not true and the NBA proves it. Beyond that, the NHL has said time and again that they are not asking players to give up guaranteed contracts. so it would seem your assumption is incorrect.

 

[PecaFan]

If you are willing to admit it, what evidence would you specifically want to see? What specifically would change your belief?

Interesting question. I guess I'd have to see as many teams in the bottom half of the league salary wise winning the Cup under the last CBA as are in the the top half.