why am i against a cap ?

[me2]

sorry to bring up an old thread .. but you would prefer a system where PHI let Lecalir go instead of being saddled with an ugly contract ? isnt it great to see NYR paying Holik 9m and suffering for it ? why choose a system that doesnt allow them to sink their team ? it isnt a good thing for the small markets that DAL has Turgeon and Young on their roster instead of "good players" ?

whats wrong with a system that suckered those 3 teams into those deals ? isnt it punishment enough ? i like that NYR is stuck with a 9m HOlik, that PHI is stuck with a 9m Leclair and that DAL was stuck with a 6m Turgeon. I think its great for the other teams in the league too.

seriously, why are we looking to change that ?

dr

That's all well and good when the fail but you'll also have notice that they don't always fail. Why not quote some of the successes from paying a lot of money to older players?

 

[SENSible1*]

That's all well and good when the fail but you'll also have notice that they don't always fail. Why not quote some of the successes from paying a lot of money to older players?

Like the ability of big markets to ice a contender even when their drafting and player development is complete crap.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Like the ability of big markets to ice a contender even when their drafting and player development is complete crap.

Which teams are you talking about?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

That's all well and good when the fail but you'll also have notice that they don't always fail. Why not quote some of the successes from paying a lot of money to older players?

ok, lets ...


.....


ok, whats your list ?

dr

 

[Mothra]

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr

Well.....just where will these players be going? I dont agree with the ages you are putting up, but thats besides the point. You make it sound like these players will leave the game....yes, you may lose a player entering his prime.....but cant you sign somebody elses? And with a cap they all cant load up on one team

Ive heard good arguments against a cap......this is not one of them

 

[chriss_co]

sorry to bring up an old thread .. but you would prefer a system where PHI let Lecalir go instead of being saddled with an ugly contract ? isnt it great to see NYR paying Holik 9m and suffering for it ? why choose a system that doesnt allow them to sink their team ? it isnt a good thing for the small markets that DAL has Turgeon and Young on their roster instead of "good players" ?

whats wrong with a system that suckered those 3 teams into those deals ? isnt it punishment enough ? i like that NYR is stuck with a 9m HOlik, that PHI is stuck with a 9m Leclair and that DAL was stuck with a 6m Turgeon. I think its great for the other teams in the league too.

seriously, why are we looking to change that ?

dr

yea its great.. until a small market team has to negotiate a contract for a restricted free agent and the player compares himself to these rejects and demands salary of equal or greater magnitude

 

[MarkZackKarl]

since when can a RFA player compare themselves to a UFA player? Its funny how ignorant the pro-owners are. They dont even understand the CBA an they think they can make an accurate potrayal of the state of the league.

Once again goes to confirm my beliefs about the general masses. And they aren't pretty.

 

[PecaFan]

sorry to bring up an old thread .. but you would prefer a system where PHI let Lecalir go instead of being saddled with an ugly contract ?

That's exactly the point, it *hasn't* sunk them. The current system doesn't sink *their* team, it sinks the teams around them. Philly is doing just fine with their overpaid guy, they just go and get someone else. They can pay to eliminate their mistakes.

Yes, I'd love to see Philly under a cap system. Then that Leclair contract would seriously impact them. They'd be forced to use lesser players to stay under a hard cap.

And if they jettisoned him in some sort of buyout, they take the financial hit, but they'd also still be taking a cap hit for signing that contract. Incorrect decisions would have impact on the ice, not just the pocketbook.

And that's the way it should be.

 

[SENSible1*]

That's exactly the point, it *hasn't* sunk them. The current system doesn't sink *their* team, it sinks the teams around them. Philly is doing just fine with their overpaid guy, they just go and get someone else. They can pay to eliminate their mistakes.

Yes, I'd love to see Philly under a cap system. Then that Leclair contract would seriously impact them. They'd be forced to use lesser players to stay under a hard cap.

And if they jettisoned him in some sort of buyout, they take the financial hit, but they'd also still be taking a cap hit for signing that contract. Incorrect decisions would have impact on the ice, not just the pocketbook.

And that's the way it should be.

How dare you want all teams to play by the same rules?

Reward brains, not bucks.

 

[Toonces]

And if they jettisoned him in some sort of buyout, they take the financial hit, but they'd also still be taking a cap hit for signing that contract. Incorrect decisions would have impact on the ice, not just the pocketbook.

And that's the way it should be.

I'd like to see that, and I cheer for a "wealthy" team.

I'm not on the owners side, they screwed up an alful lot to get us to where we are now, but I'd like to see some parity in the league.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Incorrect decisions would have impact on the ice, not just the pocketbook.

And that's the way it should be.

hmm ..

doesnt having John Leclair take up a roster spot hurt them on the ice ? not too mention paying him 9m for the pleasure ?

PHI would be better without him. A salary cap would have forced them to not make that poor decision.

THis is GOOD good for small markets, not bad. And no one is using Leclair as a comparable in contracts, so let PHI (and DAL and NYR and TOR) make those signings.

DR

 

[PecaFan]

doesnt having John Leclair take up a roster spot hurt them on the ice ? not too mention paying him 9m for the pleasure ?

No, because he's still a useful NHL quality player. They can pay him like a first liner, and play him on the 3rd or 4th line where his skill level may be at now. *Somebody* has to be there.

So, ultimately it only affects them in the pocketbook.

 

[Trottier]

Reward brains, not bucks.

Respectfully, its demagoguing like this that diminishes otherwise salient points made by those of you in favor of a hardcap.

To suggest that the top teams in the league over the past decades have had to spend exorbitantly to retain their high level is not debatable. To maintain a good team one has to spend and spend a lot. And some teams clearly have an advantage over others in that regard.

But to casually imply that the Wings, Avs and NJD have simply relied on big wallets to achieve and maintain superiority over other teams is patently false and reeks of petty jealousy and worse. If one cannot make the point about high payrolls without diminishing the accomplishments of winners and what it takes to get to that plateau - great managements, drafting, development, coaching, talent, as well as resource$ - one is terribly disingenuous or uninformed.

 

[PecaFan]

Nobody said the Wings, Avs, and Devils success was *only* because of money as far as I'm aware. But it's certainly been a factor.

How much of a factor is hard to say. Without deep pockets, there's no way in hell the Avs keep bringing in guys like Fleury, Bourque, Blake. Same with the Wings and getting Hull, Hasek, keeping Yzerman, Shanny and the rest etc.

Yes, those teams would still have been good, and there'd be some Cup wins in there. But I don't think we'd have seen the "pass the Cup around between the three of us for 10 years" that we saw without the bucks. A few other teams would have slipped in there and won as well.

 

[SENSible1*]

Respectfully, its demagoguing like this that diminishes otherwise salient points made by those of you in favor of a hardcap.

To suggest that the top teams in the league over the past decades have had to spend exorbitantly to retain their high level is not debatable. To maintain a good team one has to spend and spend a lot. And some teams clearly have an advantage over others in that regard.

But to casually imply that the Wings, Avs and NJD have simply relied on big wallets to achieve and maintain superiority over other teams is patently false and reeks of petty jealousy and worse. If one cannot make the point about high payrolls without diminishing the accomplishments of winners and what it takes to get to that plateau - great managements, drafting, development, coaching, talent, as well as resource$ - one is terribly disingenuous or uninformed.

Congrats on not only having the ability to miss the point, but to misrepresent that intention behind the point.

The previous system rewarded brains and bucks and did so unequally based on bucks. All teams could use brains to improve their team, but only a precious few could reap the true rewards for that work.

The coming system will place all teams in the same situation, where brains are paramount.

Hope this clears things up for you.

 

[Trottier]

Nobody said the Wings, Avs, and Devils success was *only* because of money as far as I'm aware. But it's certainly been a factor.

Stated as much in the previous post. Significant payroll is required to sustain a successful, competitive team. It's a real issue that should be addressed. However, some pro-cappers, in their zeal to defend their stance, blur the lines between that reality and the mythological "going out and buying players to win a Cup".

Congrats on not only having the ability to miss the point, but to misrepresent that intention behind the point....Hope this clears things up for you.

Thanks for the clarification.

When one reads the bumper sticker "Reward brains, not bucks," I hope you could understand how the previous inference could be made.

While your main point about teams being on unequal financial footing is not debatable, I still keep coming back to this mindset, which is espressed by many who share your POV:

"but only a precious few could reap the true rewards for that work...."

Does that not imply that we should "engineer" things so that more teams win? If so, why? Isn't that rigging the system, just as you see it being rigged today? Sorry, just not buying the competition/parity line, as anything more that the lament of fans of teams that don't win. (And - surprise - most teams don't win! As it should be, and always has been. One team - the best one - hoists the Cup each year.)

Heck, the owners are not squawking about on-ice parity, they are concerned about cost certainty. As PecaFan astutely observed in another post, (some) fans are the ones who bring this issue up. (And ironically, the NHLPA's last offer addressed it moreso than any previous owner proposal.)

If one wishes to ensure that owners - those who invest in the frnachise - are able to control costs more efficiently - I'm on board. If you want to wrap it up in under the guise of solving the league's "competition problem", that is a premise without merit, IMO.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The coming system will place all teams in the same situation, where brains are paramount.

i am curious why the fans of the teams with the money shouldnt expect their teams to buy their way out of trouble ? it sure beats the owner just sticking the money in their pocket.

Toronto Maple Leaf fans lined MLSE with close to 75million dollars in profit (according to story in the Globe & Mail). They shouldnt expect it to be invested in players ?

With a 40m cap (give or take) that 75 million is going to be 100 million.

I think a better answer to the problem of REVENUE disparity is REVENUE sharing, not cost certainty.

DR

 

[SENSible1*]

Stated as much in the previous post. Significant payroll is required to sustain a successful, competitive team. It's a real issue that should be addressed. However, some pro-cappers, in their zeal to defend their stance, blur the lines between that reality and the mythological "going out and buying players to win a Cup".



Thanks for the clarification.

When one reads the bumper sticker "Reward brains, not bucks," I hope you could understand how the previous inference could be made.

While your main point about teams being on unequal financial footing is not debatable, I still keep coming back to this mindset, which is espressed by many who share your POV:

"but only a precious few could reap the true rewards for that work...."

Does that not imply that we should "engineer" things so that more teams win? If so, why? Isn't that rigging the system, just as you see it being rigged today? Sorry, just not buying the competition/parity line, as anything more that the lament of fans of teams that don't win. (And - surprise - most teams don't win! As it should be, and always has been. One team - the best one - hoists the Cup each year.)

No, we should "engineer" things so that teams win the cup based on their ability to manage/coach, i.e. their brains.

Why do you assume more teams would win?

I'd suggest the opposite may be true.

Lou Lamerillo or Ken Hitchcock could end up worth as much or more than any player. Personally, I'd like to see a league where the power returned to the coaches managers and pouting prima donna's were put in their place.

Heck, the owners are not squawking about on-ice parity, they are concerned about cost certainty. As PecaFan astutely observed in another post, (some) fans are the ones who bring this issue up. (And ironically, the NHLPA's last offer addressed it moreso than any previous owner proposal.)

If one wishes to ensure that owners - those who invest in the frnachise - are able to control costs more efficiently - I'm on board. If you want to wrap it up in under the guise of solving the league's "competition problem", that is a premise without merit, IMO.

I think I've been pretty clear in stating that this is all about money and the cap effect of setting teams on a more level playing field is just a happy side-effect.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Thanks for the clarification.

When one reads the bumper sticker "Reward brains, not bucks," I hope you could understand how the previous inference could be made.

Don't worry. Whenever you call thunderstruck on his more absurd statements, he tells you you misinterpreted what he said. It happens so much, I think he should probably dumb everythign dwon so us commoners can follow.

 

[SENSible1*]

Don't worry. Whenever you call thunderstruck on his more absurd statements, he tells you you misinterpreted what he said. It happens so much, I think he should probably dumb everythign dwon so us commoners can follow.

Setting the record straight, when you feel an inividual has misrepresented your position, is what adults do during discourse.

 

[YellHockey*]

Don't worry. Whenever you call thunderstruck on his more absurd statements, he tells you you misinterpreted what he said. It happens so much, I think he should probably dumb everythign dwon so us commoners can follow.

I find the ignore list a handy option.

There's no point arguing with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

[SENSible1*]

I find the ignore list a handy option.

There's no point arguing with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

It's the only method you ever employ BRG.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Setting the record straight, when you feel an inividual has misrepresented your position, is what adults do during discourse.

Doesn't the fact that so many people "misrepresent" what you say give you a clue that you're not being clear enough?

 

[SENSible1*]

Doesn't the fact that so many people "misrepresent" what you say give you a clue that you're not being clear enough?

So many = two?

Just more brilliance from your fingertips.

 

[hockeytown9321]

So many = two?

Just more brilliance from your fingertips.

Actually three that I've found today.

Instead of taking shots at me, why not clarify your statements, or perhaps defend them?