VOTE for the CBA you would like next season ?

[loveshack2]

All these choices are completely wrong:

31 Mil hard cap + equal revenue sharing.

anything else, as has been said over and over and over again yet for some reason people just dont seem to get it, continues to make the NHL non-viable as a business and they will continue to bleed money until it goes bankrupt.

Hard cap & revenue sharing... No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Just because it's said over and over and over again doesn't make it correct.

Salaries need to come down, that is the problem. A hard cap and revenue sharing is certainly one way to fix that problem (one that has about zero chance of happening BTW) but that doesn't make it the only way.

There are teams that can afford to spend lots of money on salaries and there are team that cannot. Obviously a compromise or a middle ground needs to be reached. I cant imagine how handcuffing everybody into spending only as much as the poorest team is in the best interests of the league.

 

[no13matssundin]

Just because it's said over and over and over again doesn't make it correct.

Salaries need to come down, that is the problem. A hard cap and revenue sharing is certainly one way to fix that problem (one that has about zero chance of happening BTW) but that doesn't make it the only way.

There are teams that can afford to spend lots of money on salaries and there are team that cannot. Obviously a compromise or a middle ground needs to be reached. I cant imagine how handcuffing everybody into spending only as much as the poorest team is in the best interests of the league.

1st thing:

It is going to happen. How do I know? Because the owners are about to sit out 2 + years to make it happen. Theyre going to break the Union b/c, if they dont get a hard cap, the League dies.

And, yes, it IS the only way. Why do you think the owners put 6 proposals forward that all amounted to a hard cap? Because ITS THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE ECONOMIC VIABILITY.

I love how people seem to think that a luxury tax works "like it does in the NBA"... um, newsflash, it DOESNT work. Walk with me throughvery simplified basic NHL economics as stated by Levitt Report:

NHL yearly total net revenue=1 Bil $
1 Bil divided by 31 (30 teams, 1 league office)= 32,226,000$ a year
NHL yearly net losses = 1.3 Bil$
Net gain/loss= 300 Mil $
300 Mil divided by 31= 9,670,000 Mil lost a year per team/league
% of NHL revenue put to Players= 75%.... of 1 Bil.

So... the players get roughly 750 Mil of the 1 Bil... but ANNUALLY, teams are losing 9 mil $...

So, lets bring in a dollar-for-dollar 40 Mil $ luxury tax... and lets say the extreme, that 12 teams spend 60 Mil... 20 Mil over... so the luxury tax becomes 12 x 20 mil = 240 Mil $ for league.... PROBLEM SOLVED right?..

WRONG:

The league is already LOSING 300 Mil a year. Taking that 240 Mil in you are still having a net loss STILL at 60 Mil$ a year. In other words, the LEAGUE IS STILL BLEEDING MONEY.

I dont know why this is so hard to understand? THERE MUST BE A HARD CAP.

 

[no13matssundin]

And if you STILL dont get it, heres the link to the site that explains it by the numbers:

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/uro_results.html

 

[Yammer]

I like B) the best, primarily because I think it is a good thing to allow teams to overspend. A glamourous marquee team like Detroit is, in my thinking, exciting and attractive to fans. Nor does the present CBA forbid the creation of competitive, cheaper teams, e.g. Calgary.

I am philosophically opposed to the cap (especially the 31 M cap). No other business allows an owner to buy in and have a guaranteed profit, not even McDonalds.

I am not clear about what "rookie cap bonuses" means. I think that the post should say, "with no rookie bonuses," since the Thornton precedent (the 2/6 formula) has contributed greatly to the massive inflation of salaries. All of the proposals are designed to slow the escalation of player costs, so B) makes little sense unless you delete the bonuses.

 

[Licentia]

u mean like how they (OTT) had to deal Daniel Alfredsson ? oh wait, they didnt, they resigned him.

u mean how they had to deal Yashin ? oh wait, that was a fantastic trade that landed them Spezza and Chara and unloaded Yashin on NYI.

so, what players has OTT had to unload because they cant afford to resign ?

dr

Yeah great, Ottawa may have got Spezza from the trade, but not having Yashin may have been the difference between them having won the cup by now and where they are now without it.

 

[Licentia]

But under a cap, teams still won't be able to keep the good players they drafted. A cap will not allow anyone to sustain a good team for very long.

Why wouldn't they? Is the cap only going to affect 5 teams while everyone else can free-spend? Of course not. Every team will be under the same financial constraints.

 

[Licentia]

Also it's funny how the Montreal Canadiens didn't hesitate to pay a little more for Bonk than what the Sens receive from the Kings ? To me it just show again about the GM competency or lack thereof. Also did I need to mention that Bonk negotiate a new contract for Bonk ? That must mean that Bonk had a specific value for some teams & not for the Sens. This is not a problem of the CBA this is a MANAGEMENT PROBLEM.

That's the thing about what people here make the same mistake time after time with their arguments, they don't look the management part & they blame the CBA for everything that goes wrong with 1 team (usually THE team that they're fan).

I've already answered this.

Teams are willing to pay more so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

 

[Guest]

One thing a hard cap does do is encourage parity. It's been said numerous times throughout this thread that the top teams will lose steam because they won't be able to keep all of their great players under the cap, and that is where the cap philosophy is wrong.

Go back a few years ago before Colorado, Detroit and New Jersey dominanted the Cup for the majority of the past 10 years, and look at the salaries they have toppled out to as a result of their winning. Even if teams like Detroit & Colorado didn't spend nearly as freely in the free agent market, like New Jersey has been able to refrain from largely, they still have to pay their players more each year for being Cup winners essentially.

So for example, take Ottawa or Tampa Bay right now, both great young teams that look like they could be in line the next few years as Cup contenders. Under a hard cap, you'd see these teams losing top end talent because they are unable to continually pay them raises they would seek and mostly earn from winning. The cap would block it, so then these teams would have to trade these players with growing salaries to teams who could afford them under the cap. That's parity.

Non-Homegrown-style cap is a resolution to this issue. Let the teams who develop their players have the chance to keep them, rather than the hard cap forcing the issue.

Again, just look at how the rosters of Detroit & Colorado would have looked over the past 10 years, who won 5/10 cups in that span. They would have had to trade key components that helped them advance in multiple Cup victories.

Of course you can argue against the same teams winning all the time, and that's ok too. What is the point of building a team if you can't make a serious run with them on top?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Why wouldn't they? Is the cap only going to affect 5 teams while everyone else can free-spend? Of course not. Every team will be under the same financial constraints.

every team WILL NOT BE under the same financial constraints. One team could have no cap room while another could have a lot. Does the team with no cap room have the same abilty to sign FA''s or retain their players as the team with $5 million in cap space? How is this equal?


Lets look at now vs. what it would be under a cap:

Now: teams lose players they draft and develop because they can't afford to keep them.

Under a cap: teams lose players they draft and develop because they don't have the cap room to keep them.

Why is it unfair now and fair under a cap?

Isn't the biggest complaint that the small payroll teams are not allowed to keep their players? Tell me how they could keep them under a cap.

 

[Licentia]

I'm running around in circles trying to explain my logic ... I'm dropping out. You're right The current CBA is just perfect. Sorry for initially thinking otherwise.......

Let's give all 30 teams over the past 10 years the exact same players. Let's say that every team has the draft picks and players of Detroit over the last 10 years. Let's say that every team has Detroits scouts, coaching staff and GM.

Now NHLPA fans can't say that it's poor management, coaching or drafting that causes the problems.

Now that everyone is on the exact same level, let's give each team a different amount of revenue. Some teams can make $50-$60 million in revenue. Some teams can only make $30-$40 million in revenue.

I don't have to say anything more. Come back to the winning side friend.

 

[Licentia]

I voted for "C".
The small market guys would have their cap. The rich teams could do what they want but they pay extra for it (I would divide that money amongst the Canadian franchises to offset the difference between Canadian/US dollar and the small market clubs). The players would get to be free agents at 27, going into their prime earning years. A cap of on rookie salaries is a good idea too. Let these "can't miss" guys earn their first fat contract after proving it in the NHL.
Everybody gives up something, but everyone gets something.

I have to agree. Anything that will even up the playing field. That's all I care about is equality.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Let's give all 30 teams over the past 10 years the exact same players. Let's say that every team has the draft picks and players of Detroit over the last 10 years. Let's say that every team has Detroits scouts, coaching staff and GM.

Now NHLPA fans can't say that it's poor management, coaching or drafting that causes the problems.

Now that everyone is on the exact same level, let's give each team a different amount of revenue. Some teams can make $50-$60 million in revenue. Some teams can only make $30-$40 million in revenue.

I don't have to say anything more. Come back to the winning side friend.

You don't win until you tell me how a team that drafts well over a long period of time can keep all of their players under a cap.

 

[Licentia]

I dont know if we want owners just pocketing revenue from the luxury tax and not re-investing it into their teams.

If they do and their team is not successful, then they will pay the price when the fans don't come out.

Maybe too, the league could make sure the teams don't get more than they need to pay that seasons salaries, when the Lux tax cash gets passed around. Each team would have to show it's spending for the year and earnings, etc.

 

[loveshack2]

Walk with me throughvery simplified basic NHL economics as stated by Levitt Report:

NHL yearly total net revenue=1 Bil $
1 Bil divided by 31 (30 teams, 1 league office)= 32,226,000$ a year
NHL yearly net losses = 1.3 Bil$
Net gain/loss= 300 Mil $
300 Mil divided by 31= 9,670,000 Mil lost a year per team/league
% of NHL revenue put to Players= 75%.... of 1 Bil.

So... the players get roughly 750 Mil of the 1 Bil... but ANNUALLY, teams are losing 9 mil $...

So, lets bring in a dollar-for-dollar 40 Mil $ luxury tax... and lets say the extreme, that 12 teams spend 60 Mil... 20 Mil over... so the luxury tax becomes 12 x 20 mil = 240 Mil $ for league.... PROBLEM SOLVED right?..

WRONG:

The league is already LOSING 300 Mil a year. Taking that 240 Mil in you are still having a net loss STILL at 60 Mil$ a year. In other words, the LEAGUE IS STILL BLEEDING MONEY.

I dont know why this is so hard to understand? THERE MUST BE A HARD CAP.

Im looking at the Levitt report right now. I dont know where you're getting you're numbers unless you're just making them up for the sake of keeping things simple. League revenues were almost $2 billion (not $1 billion) and league losses are said to be $273 million, not $300 million. Not that big a difference but if you're going to use numbers it's probably better to use accurate ones.

There must be a reduction in player salaries I fully agree. I just dont know why you insist that a hard cap is the only way. I dont agree that bringing every other team in the league down to the level of the poorest is the correct solution.

Anyway the league is not run as a single solitary business. It's a collection of 30 different businesses, each in it's own market with it's own ownership group. Lumping all the numbers together to say the league in total is losing $273 million is rather meaningless. Each year some make a profit and some lose money. And believe it or not some fluctuate between those two states. Maybe one year you go deep in the playoffs and make a good profit and the next you miss the dance and lose a good chunk. As long as the economic environment gives you the opportunity to make a profit over the long haul with a well managed team, then that's all you can ask. And yes I realize that right now this is not the case, it needs to change. I just dont believe it needs as dramatic a change as you propose.

Teams should have the ability to make a profit, in some cases right now they dont and that does need to change. However I dont think we need to go so far as to *guarantee* that each and every team is profitable. If your team is badly managed or the area you're in just doesnt support hockey then maybe you shouldnt have a team, and I dont see what's so wrong about saying that. The website you provided a link to clearly shows that *4* NHL teams are responsible for $142 million of the leagues total operating losses. I dont think it's wrong to say that if your team is low in the standings and not attracting decent crowds then you deserve to be losing money.

So anyway, those are some nice numbers and we certainly agree that player salaries are too high and that they need to come down. However I still havent seen a convincing argument as to why a hard cap is the singular, solitary, and only way to go about it.

 

[Licentia]

1st thing:

It is going to happen. How do I know? Because the owners are about to sit out 2 + years to make it happen. Theyre going to break the Union b/c, if they dont get a hard cap, the League dies.

And, yes, it IS the only way. Why do you think the owners put 6 proposals forward that all amounted to a hard cap? Because ITS THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE ECONOMIC VIABILITY.

I love how people seem to think that a luxury tax works "like it does in the NBA"... um, newsflash, it DOESNT work. Walk with me throughvery simplified basic NHL economics as stated by Levitt Report:

NHL yearly total net revenue=1 Bil $
1 Bil divided by 31 (30 teams, 1 league office)= 32,226,000$ a year
NHL yearly net losses = 1.3 Bil$
Net gain/loss= 300 Mil $
300 Mil divided by 31= 9,670,000 Mil lost a year per team/league
% of NHL revenue put to Players= 75%.... of 1 Bil.

So... the players get roughly 750 Mil of the 1 Bil... but ANNUALLY, teams are losing 9 mil $...

So, lets bring in a dollar-for-dollar 40 Mil $ luxury tax... and lets say the extreme, that 12 teams spend 60 Mil... 20 Mil over... so the luxury tax becomes 12 x 20 mil = 240 Mil $ for league.... PROBLEM SOLVED right?..

WRONG:

The league is already LOSING 300 Mil a year. Taking that 240 Mil in you are still having a net loss STILL at 60 Mil$ a year. In other words, the LEAGUE IS STILL BLEEDING MONEY.

I dont know why this is so hard to understand? THERE MUST BE A HARD CAP.

Now that I see numbers, I have to take back what I said about the luxury tax. Maybe a luxury tax wouldn't make the difference?

 

[Licentia]

I like B) the best, primarily because I think it is a good thing to allow teams to overspend. A glamourous marquee team like Detroit is, in my thinking, exciting and attractive to fans. Nor does the present CBA forbid the creation of competitive, cheaper teams, e.g. Calgary.

I am philosophically opposed to the cap (especially the 31 M cap). No other business allows an owner to buy in and have a guaranteed profit, not even McDonalds.

I am not clear about what "rookie cap bonuses" means. I think that the post should say, "with no rookie bonuses," since the Thornton precedent (the 2/6 formula) has contributed greatly to the massive inflation of salaries. All of the proposals are designed to slow the escalation of player costs, so B) makes little sense unless you delete the bonuses.

McDonalds pays the same to every employee across each state/province. They don't let a wealthier McDonalds steal all the best employees from another with more lucrative salaries. In other words = Cap.

 

[Licentia]

One thing a hard cap does do is encourage parity. It's been said numerous times throughout this thread that the top teams will lose steam because they won't be able to keep all of their great players under the cap, and that is where the cap philosophy is wrong.

Go back a few years ago before Colorado, Detroit and New Jersey dominanted the Cup for the majority of the past 10 years, and look at the salaries they have toppled out to as a result of their winning. Even if teams like Detroit & Colorado didn't spend nearly as freely in the free agent market, like New Jersey has been able to refrain from largely, they still have to pay their players more each year for being Cup winners essentially.

So for example, take Ottawa or Tampa Bay right now, both great young teams that look like they could be in line the next few years as Cup contenders. Under a hard cap, you'd see these teams losing top end talent because they are unable to continually pay them raises they would seek and mostly earn from winning. The cap would block it, so then these teams would have to trade these players with growing salaries to teams who could afford them under the cap. That's parity.

Non-Homegrown-style cap is a resolution to this issue. Let the teams who develop their players have the chance to keep them, rather than the hard cap forcing the issue.

Again, just look at how the rosters of Detroit & Colorado would have looked over the past 10 years, who won 5/10 cups in that span. They would have had to trade key components that helped them advance in multiple Cup victories.

Of course you can argue against the same teams winning all the time, and that's ok too. What is the point of building a team if you can't make a serious run with them on top?

It doesn't matter. Tampa is going to have to lose some players now anyway(Tampa has talked openly in the media about the need for a cap, so why would they complain if they thought they'd be worse off under a cap?), so will Ottawa when the owner no longer wants to lose money. Detroit, New York and some other good teams can keep going endlessly without losing the players they need to win.

Too bad if Detroit can't keep a bunch of expensive UFAs. They can keep a winning team by drafting right, not by buying a team. Young players can fill the void if a player leaves the team. I don't care if Detroit can keep winning, I want to see Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Calgary being CONSISTENT cup competitors. That will never happen under the current CBA.

 

[hockeytown9321]

McDonalds pays the same to every employee across each state/province. They don't let a wealthier McDonalds steal all the best employees from another with more lucrative salaries. In other words = Cap.

First, you can find any nimrod off the street and he'd be a good McDonalds employee. But how many superstar hockey players are there? If I work at McD's and wanted a raise because I'm a great employee, they could fire me and hire anybody to replace me. I'm not intregal. Jerome Iginla is intregal to the Flames.

Now, lets say I'm the best McD's employee in the world, and the franchise I work at would be devestated if I left. Knowing this, the owner of my McD's franchise wants to give me a raise, but alas, he can't becuase he has a cap, and I'm forced to work at another McD's that has enough cap room for me. The first one is so bad off without me, it goes out of business. My new one becomes the best run and most profitable in the enitre chain.

What did the first franchise owner do wrong? He hired an outstanding employee and wanted to keep him , but was prevented. The second owner didn't have to do any reseach on me. He knows my reputation from the previous franchise. He makes out big time because he just so happened to have the right cap room at the right time.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Too bad if Detroit can't keep a bunch of expensive UFAs. They can keep a winning team by drafting right, not by buying a team. Young players can fill the void if a player leaves the team. I don't care if Detroit can keep winning, I want to see Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Calgary being CONSISTENT cup competitors. That will never happen under the current CBA.

How did Detroit build their team? I think you need to look into this a little closer.

NOBODY will be able to be consistent contenders under a cap. This isn't even a theoretical issue. Look at the NFL.

 

[loveshack2]

McDonalds pays the same to every employee across each state/province. They don't let a wealthier McDonalds steal all the best employees from another with more lucrative salaries. In other words = Cap.

Wealther McDonald's dont steal the better employees from the poorer McDonald's because there is no such thing as a better McDonald's employee, for all intents and purposes one McDonald's employee is identical to another. And their production impacts very little on the performance of the franchise. That couldnt be further from the truth when talking about a sports team.

 

[Licentia]

every team WILL NOT BE under the same financial constraints. One team could have no cap room while another could have a lot. Does the team with no cap room have the same abilty to sign FA''s or retain their players as the team with $5 million in cap space? How is this equal?

Okay, you are right. I can acknowledge when I lose an argument, unlike some. That's when good scouting, drafting and player development come in. Teams can fill the void with talented young players if they do the right job in those areas. And that's what all you NHLPA fans say anyway, that the teams should do a better job of drafting to make a successful team. Or is that another hypocrisy on the NHLPA fan's side that i'm about to uncover.

Lets look at now vs. what it would be under a cap:

Now: teams lose players they draft and develop because they can't afford to keep them.

Under a cap: teams lose players they draft and develop because they don't have the cap room to keep them.

Why is it unfair now and fair under a cap?

Isn't the biggest complaint that the small payroll teams are not allowed to keep their players? Tell me how they could keep them under a cap.

Because all teams would be on the same level as far as how much they could spend, unlike now when certain teams have an advantage. You are only proving that things would be the same as they are now with your argument. At least under a cap all teams would be equal.

Another NHLPA fans argument blown out of the water, and humility from an NHL Owners fan who admitted he lost 1 argument.

 

[Licentia]

You don't win until you tell me how a team that drafts well over a long period of time can keep all of their players under a cap.

They can't. But they have a constant flow of good young players coming up to fill the void. And no team can hold on to more of those great players than another, because all is equal financially under a cap.

Like some NHLPA fans argue, New York "sucked" when they signed all those free agents and you can only win by drafting well. I've heard that argument repeatedly. Well, under a cap that's what teams will be forced to do. Build a smart team through the draft, and not just go out and buy a team and then "suck." All those great young players coming up through the system will keep any team on top for a long time.

 

[Guest]

It doesn't matter. Tampa is going to have to lose some players now anyway(Tampa has talked openly in the media about the need for a cap, so why would they complain if they thought they'd be worse off under a cap?), so will Ottawa when the owner no longer wants to lose money. Detroit, New York and some other good teams can keep going endlessly without losing the players they need to win.

Too bad if Detroit can't keep a bunch of expensive UFAs. They can keep a winning team by drafting right, not by buying a team. Young players can fill the void if a player leaves the team. I don't care if Detroit can keep winning, I want to see Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Calgary being CONSISTENT cup competitors. That will never happen under the current CBA.

I never said there should be NO CAP or that I was anti-cap, so get your arguements straight. Just because TB & OTT are on the pro-cap side, most of the league is who aren't the spenders, doesn't mean there is a better solution than the hard cap. I never said I agree with the current CBA either. Actually the solution I offered tends to apply to all teams evenly and fairly, but I guess you have your own agenda.

If you look at how Detroit was built, they were able to turn a lot of their prospects into more valuable players, and oddly enough many of those prospects flopped as well which shows how good the management was. There were also some key homegrown talent that helped to build the team (Yzerman, Federov, Lidstrom, Holmstrom, etc).

My point is that a non-Homegrown style cap would still allow all teams to add some key free agents, but it'd slow down the growth in the UFA market, which is what has really inflated to the point of absurdity. The rookie contracts could be worked on as well. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if you took the league average of players of UFA age requirements, you'd see that there is probably a very high average compared to the league average under $1.8 million. Even if the UFA average was $2.7 million, that'd be 50% greater than the league-wide average. The UFA's are cashing in, and there are a few GM's who are too eager to outbid each other for reasons including hockey and not.

Some of the teams are able to stockpile the higher priced players from other teams as well (see NY, STL, TOR) that they wouldn't be able to do under the non-homegrown cap. That would moderate the RFA salaries even more.

Odds are the non-homegrown cap is as big of a nightmare to the NHLPA as a hard cap, but it's far more flexible by comparison and offers more. The NHL owners could even lower the UFA age and still keep some leverage because of it as well because of the UFA's counting towards a cap.

 

[Licentia]

Im looking at the Levitt report right now. I dont know where you're getting you're numbers unless you're just making them up for the sake of keeping things simple. League revenues were almost $2 billion (not $1 billion) and league losses are said to be $273 million, not $300 million. Not that big a difference but if you're going to use numbers it's probably better to use accurate ones.

There must be a reduction in player salaries I fully agree. I just dont know why you insist that a hard cap is the only way. I dont agree that bringing every other team in the league down to the level of the poorest is the correct solution.

Anyway the league is not run as a single solitary business. It's a collection of 30 different businesses, each in it's own market with it's own ownership group. Lumping all the numbers together to say the league in total is losing $273 million is rather meaningless. Each year some make a profit and some lose money. And believe it or not some fluctuate between those two states. Maybe one year you go deep in the playoffs and make a good profit and the next you miss the dance and lose a good chunk. As long as the economic environment gives you the opportunity to make a profit over the long haul with a well managed team, then that's all you can ask. And yes I realize that right now this is not the case, it needs to change. I just dont believe it needs as dramatic a change as you propose.

Teams should have the ability to make a profit, in some cases right now they dont and that does need to change. However I dont think we need to go so far as to *guarantee* that each and every team is profitable. If your team is badly managed or the area you're in just doesnt support hockey then maybe you shouldnt have a team, and I dont see what's so wrong about saying that. The website you provided a link to clearly shows that *4* NHL teams are responsible for $142 million of the leagues total operating losses. I dont think it's wrong to say that if your team is low in the standings and not attracting decent crowds then you deserve to be losing money.

So anyway, those are some nice numbers and we certainly agree that player salaries are too high and that they need to come down. However I still havent seen a convincing argument as to why a hard cap is the singular, solitary, and only way to go about it.

Maybe I wasn't so wrong. I'd be happy to get the compromise of a $45 million luxury tax, if that's possible. It would help more than the current CBA.

 

[Licentia]

First, you can find any nimrod off the street and he'd be a good McDonalds employee.
Now, lets say I'm the best McD's employee in the world, and the franchise I work at would be devestated if I left. Knowing this, the owner of my McD's franchise wants to give me a raise, but alas, he can't becuase he has a cap, and I'm forced to work at another McD's that has enough cap room for me. The first one is so bad off without me, it goes out of business. My new one becomes the best run and most profitable in the enitre chain.
What did the first franchise owner do wrong? He hired an outstanding employee and wanted to keep him , but was prevented. The second owner didn't have to do any reseach on me. He knows my reputation from the previous franchise. He makes out big time because he just so happened to have the right cap room at the right time.

Ha. McDonalds has a "Salary Structure" which is an option for the NHL. The guy who runs the McDonalds at the other location wouldn't be able to pay the employee more because of the "Salary Structure." A salary structure is like a cap.

If your comparison were true, then the other McDonalds is responsible to make sure it is "drafting" the right young talent to fill in for the gaps. That is responsible management after all, and that is exactly what NHLPA fans say is missing from the league right now. Remember, at least the rich McDonalds has the same "salary structure or cap" as the poor McDonalds so every McDonalds has the same opportunity to compete. If they fail to, it wasn't because the other McDonalds had a bigger budget. It was because the failed McDonalds didn't do a good job management wise. They could have "drafted" other great employees to fill the gap. If they didn't, then they deserve to fail. You talk as though there are only 29 stars in the NHL and that 1 of 30 teams will fold because they didn't have one.