Why only the cap on the maximum?
- Thread starter shveik
- Start date
- Status
This is exactly what the owners have offered. A cap on both ends. How did you miss that with all the information out there on the latest offer?
A minimum is part of the NHL's counter proposal...teams would be required to spend in the range of not less than $34.6 million and not more than $38.6 million (once graduated roll backs are taken into account).
Teams like Nashville or Atlanta would have to take on a ton of payroll real fast, wouldn't they? I'm not a fan of either team, but if I were, I'd be more than happy to sit back and see the young guys already in place get the ice time instead of being force-fed a couple of 30-something veterans that rich teams are dumping to lower their payrolls.
Teams like Nashville or Atlanta would have to take on a ton of payroll real fast, wouldn't they? I'm not a fan of either team, but if I were, I'd be more than happy to sit back and see the young guys already in place get the ice time instead of being force-fed a couple of 30-something veterans that rich teams are dumping to lower their payrolls.
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
scaredsensfan said:
I actually like the move in a sense its going to get some owners that dont spend anything on their teams to start putting money into their team and be more competitive. I do question how this is going to help teams financially that are spending below the proposed cap minimum and are losing money. How is this going to help them financially?
codswallop
yes, i am an alcoholic
GabbyDugan said:
Not really, at least in Atlanta's case. Adding up the players they currently have signed, their payroll would be around $27M (that would only change marginally depending on which of the lowered salaried players you would or wouldn't include on the 23 man roster).
But they have yet to sign Heatley or Kovalchuk. Many moons ago, the team said they would try and sign each for about $4M per year but would ultimately wait until a new CBA is reached to see what would be their best fit for those two contracts. So Atlanta is positioned pretty well regardless of the outcome.
I don't necessarily agree that a $4M spread between the proposed cap and the proposed floor (in this example) is enough, but that's another issue.
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
How would it help well managed organizations? Why would fans continue to invest in a product when they see no return on it? If theres a cap, theres only a certain point (LEVEL) at team can attain.
Why should Sens fans continue to pay ticket price increases every 2 years if the product is stagnant? The great thing about a non-cap league is you can look forward to the tweaking and development of your team and players over several seasons.
In a capped league, the sport would be destroyed. Looks like Bettman is out to destroy the game to get more profits. Makes you wonder if its worth it... If only the owners understood hockey, the team building concepts and the trials and tribulations whcih are the things that make teams stronger. Why would you want a league that doesnt reward anything but luck. I have season tickets now for the Sens, but if they impose any type of hard cap I will surely cut the games I go to into at least half, if not more.
I do not wish to support a randomized league where the good are punished and the poor are rewarded. Its just illogical, and I dont want my money going to support the owners cartel.
Why should Sens fans continue to pay ticket price increases every 2 years if the product is stagnant? The great thing about a non-cap league is you can look forward to the tweaking and development of your team and players over several seasons.
In a capped league, the sport would be destroyed. Looks like Bettman is out to destroy the game to get more profits. Makes you wonder if its worth it... If only the owners understood hockey, the team building concepts and the trials and tribulations whcih are the things that make teams stronger. Why would you want a league that doesnt reward anything but luck. I have season tickets now for the Sens, but if they impose any type of hard cap I will surely cut the games I go to into at least half, if not more.
I do not wish to support a randomized league where the good are punished and the poor are rewarded. Its just illogical, and I dont want my money going to support the owners cartel.
scaredsensfan said:
And you have that right. I seriously hope you follow through on your convictions and do what you say. The game of hockey will not miss fans like you.
I'm completely baffled by your stance. Do you not remember Alexi Yashin and what he did to Ottawa? Or do you have a selective memory?
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
What did Yashin do? He let us get Chara and Spezza. We have done better every year (on average) without Yashin.
Who cares.
The NHL wants profit certainty, and has tricked less informed fans that the fight is for the league's survival.
Im too smart to fall for their BS"
Who cares.
The NHL wants profit certainty, and has tricked less informed fans that the fight is for the league's survival.
Im too smart to fall for their BS"
Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
The Iconoclast said:
huh ? why would OTT want Yashin, even if they didnt manage to get Chara and Spezza for him ?
the best thing for OTT was Yashin leaving, even for nothing.
Yup, poor OTT.
DR
DementedReality said:
You don't think that what Yashin did to Ottawa was wrong? You also don't think that a cap would have prevented that whole drawn out BS? Yashin would not have had a leg to stand on and Ottawa would have been able to deal with the situation quicker and it likely would have been better for the team (not saying that Chara and Spezza were not a good return btw).
ArtG
Registered User
You're blind to the fact that if there's a cap, salaries would decrease and potentially ticket prices too. Also, this isn't a PERMANENT VALUE, the cap is a value that changes with the revenues of the NHL. The players will always have 55% of the profits, so if the NHL makes more money, the cap will be raised. Besides, since when is a team's level left to how much money they pay out? Rangers? Flyers? Leafs? yea.. exactly..scaredsensfan said:
scaredsensfan said:
Actually "smart guy", the NHLPA has taken a stance that this is a fight for the league's survival. At no time has the NHL said this is life or death. The NHL will continue on in some shape or form after a CBA is decided upon. The NHLPA is the one saying that the league will cease to exist after everything is all said and done. But why am I telling your this? You're "too smart to fall for their BS", but look like you're willing to fall hook line and sinker for the NHLPA BS. How are sales at the koolaid stand going anyways?
:lol
CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
scaredsensfan said:
Your point would be a tad bit more salient if not for the fact that the two strongest professional sports leagues right now - both competitively and financially - also work within the structures of a salary cap.
Or is tweaking, development, etc. non-existent in the NBA and NFL?
ArtG said:
The only reason ticket prices would fall would be because the fans would view NHL hockey as less attractive than before. If I'm in Edmonton and I see ticket prices start to fall in a building that is 99.95% sold out, and the people that own the team are expecting the NYR or Philadelphia Flyers to put money in the pockets of the group that owns my hockey team, I'm going to figure that sooner or later the rich Easterners will just get tired of pumping money into the pockets of guys who are too lazy or too stupid to get their own fans to pay the going rate for the product.
s7ark
RIP
- Jul 3, 2003
- 27,579
- 174
scaredsensfan said:
I am shocked that you as a sens fan are such a vocal supporter of the NHLPA. Do you not remember your team going into bankruptcy a few years back? Yeah you have a rich owner know but do you really think you'll be able to pay all your superstars the contract's they would get under the NHLPA's proposal? he won't want to lose THAT much money
Alfredson, Hossa, Havlat, Spezza, Chara, Redden.
These are all 5+ milloin dollar players under the current CBA
And the rest of your guys aren't chopped liver.
4 years from now you'll likely be looking at
Alfredson - 7+
Hossa - 7+
Havlat - 6+
Spezza - 4+
Chara - 6+
Redden 5+
And what happens if you guys actually get a goalie? these salaries are not a far reach by any stretch. They are actually conservative
35 million for 6 players? Assuming the average salary stays the same and doesn't go up (1.8) - that is 30.6 for the other 17 players. you really think ottawa can handle a 65+ million salary in the next few years?
The reason this CBA battle is being fought right now is specifically to keep teams like yours together and not have you have to sell off your best players in a few years for picks and prospects.
Can you please explain why you are so behind the NHLPA?
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
ArtG said:
Thats not gonna happen except for when the game restarts and they want fans to come back. After that ticket prices will go back up.
PecaFan
Registered User
s7ark said:
Yup, it just amazes me how many Ottawa fans are behind the PA. I think Thunderstruck is the only one who's not.
*Everything* that the Senators are good at is *enhanced* by a cap. Finding young talent, developing young talent, signing young talent cheaply, these are prime Cap management skills.
It's the teams like the Rangers that should by fearing the cap.
Hockeyfan02 said:
well of course. They'll raise the prices until the building stops filling. It's called business. If people don't like the ticket prices, don't go. Then they'll go down.
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
lol oh my god
Are you a wall? The CAP is DESIGNED TO DESTROY TEAMS WITH ELITE LEVEL TALENT.... I just cannot understand why peolpe think the COMPLETE OPPOSITE will happen.
How can you be so wrong? You're position or belief is the 100% opposite of what will happen under a hard cap!
BTW, Alfredsson, Hossa etc would not get 7 million. Alfie is signed for 5 years. Spezza wont get 4 million till he's at least 26, at least under this CBA.
By then I would have expected the Sens to win a Cup. and if we do, then we keep the players. If we dont, after repeated attempts, then we let them go, or trade them.
The NHL should not want to destroy elite teams. They are what make the sport what it is. No one will care if Ottawa and LA square off in the final or Chicago and Nashville or Toronto and Dallas... if all teams are equal, where are the marquee matchups?? The Detroit-Colorado, Ottawa-Toronto , New Jersey-Ottawa, Toronto-Philly etc... these are the matchups people want to see...
If all teams are equal, then a Phoenix-Calgary game will be no different from a Detroit-New Jersey one.
Dont you get it? The GOOD THING about the league is that there are powerhouse teams.
Wishing them to be dismantled is just insane.
Are you a wall? The CAP is DESIGNED TO DESTROY TEAMS WITH ELITE LEVEL TALENT.... I just cannot understand why peolpe think the COMPLETE OPPOSITE will happen.
How can you be so wrong? You're position or belief is the 100% opposite of what will happen under a hard cap!
BTW, Alfredsson, Hossa etc would not get 7 million. Alfie is signed for 5 years. Spezza wont get 4 million till he's at least 26, at least under this CBA.
By then I would have expected the Sens to win a Cup. and if we do, then we keep the players. If we dont, after repeated attempts, then we let them go, or trade them.
The NHL should not want to destroy elite teams. They are what make the sport what it is. No one will care if Ottawa and LA square off in the final or Chicago and Nashville or Toronto and Dallas... if all teams are equal, where are the marquee matchups?? The Detroit-Colorado, Ottawa-Toronto , New Jersey-Ottawa, Toronto-Philly etc... these are the matchups people want to see...
If all teams are equal, then a Phoenix-Calgary game will be no different from a Detroit-New Jersey one.
Dont you get it? The GOOD THING about the league is that there are powerhouse teams.
Wishing them to be dismantled is just insane.
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
then you trade em all away
LOL" Then you trade them all after 4 years causey ou cant fit them under your cap!
Dont you get it? Ottawa is fine. They just announced that we are adding 2000 to our capacity, bringing it second in the league (20,500), behind only Montreal and tied with Chicago.
Our ticket prices are 7th in the league. We were 8th in attendance last year (paid attendance) according to Mlakar.
Our season ticket base is at 10,000 and growing. We have the 3rd most suites. The dollar is over 80 cents.
The whole bankruptcy BS has everything to do with undercapitalization and nothing to do with the CBA .
Why argue when you dont understand?
LOL" Then you trade them all after 4 years causey ou cant fit them under your cap!
Dont you get it? Ottawa is fine. They just announced that we are adding 2000 to our capacity, bringing it second in the league (20,500), behind only Montreal and tied with Chicago.
Our ticket prices are 7th in the league. We were 8th in attendance last year (paid attendance) according to Mlakar.
Our season ticket base is at 10,000 and growing. We have the 3rd most suites. The dollar is over 80 cents.
The whole bankruptcy BS has everything to do with undercapitalization and nothing to do with the CBA .
Why argue when you dont understand?
shakes
Pep City
PepNCheese said:
Yeh, Ive never understood why people think that a cap will ensure that teams will be able keep everybody together longer. Just because one team doesn't have cap room to pay someone, doesnt mean another team doesn't. You are going to have salary dumping trades like today's Raptors blockbuster and you are going to get a lot of "sign and trades". Quite honestly, IMO team chemistry and team/name recognition is going to suck.
CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
scaredsensfan said:
Using capitals is not going to make your argument any more correct.
The fact remains that the NFL and NBA experience with salary caps proves much of what you say wrong.
Are there not marquee matchups in the NFL every weekend despite its cap? Does the same not go for the NBA?
Likewise, smart, well-managed teams can remain contenders year after year. Perhaps the era of the 10-year dynasty is over, but that's actually a good thing for those leagues. Powerhouses, however, remain (see 1990s Chicago Bulls, 1990s Dallas Cowboys, 2000s New England Patriots, 2000s LA Lakers).
It's funny that you use Detroit-New Jersey as a premiere matchup that must be saved. A couple of decades ago, those two teams were the laughingstocks of the league.
- Status
