Should the NHL introduce a non-player hockey operations cap?

[Fire]

The CFL has introduced a non-player football operations cap for next season. It comes out to be $2.588 million or about half what the players cap was last season. I know the CFL might not be best place to get great ideas and I don't know the finer details of this operations cap, but I thought this would be a good idea for the NHL for a while now.

If they're interested in limiting costs and having a more equal playing field for every team, then this seems like a logical move. This new non-player cap would include salary costs for management, coaches, scouts, trainers, etc.

Right now teams like the Leafs can spend enormous amount of money for coaches and scouts, where the small market teams like the Hurricanes wouldn't have a chance to compete with them. Even the Flames couldn't spend the type of money the Leafs do for their operations without starting to lose money.

What are the downsides of this cap? I can see a problem with the CFL cap because coaches and management could just leave for another job in college football, NFL or one of the new leagues starting up. The NHL wouldn't have that problem. Even with a cap they would be highest paid coaches/management in the world of hockey. The rich teams like the Leafs and Rangers would hate it, but they probably didn't want the player cap either, even though financially they were much better off for it.

Hard to say what this new cap would be set at. If they go by the CFL cap it would be equivalent to about $40 million in the NHL. Which seems really high, but non-player salaries are not public knowledge for the most part, so what do I know, maybe some teams like Leafs are already spending over that amount. Though I doubt it still. I think $25-30 million would be more reasonable.

[joejoe3]

[DeluxeMoustache]

How would that affect the 1987/88 Edmonton Oilers?

[TheScorpion]

Funny you say that, DeluxeMoustache -- because how much do we think the current Oilers management group makes? Because between Nicholson, Lowe, Wayne Gretzky, MacTavish, Chiarelli, Howson, Keith Gretzky, Duane Sutter, Bill Scott, Bob Green, Gulutzan, Yawney, and Hitchcock... man, there must be a ton of money there.

[Itse]

I don't know, seems easy to circumvent and hard to track.

Although I guess just the hassle of that might make it unenticing.

[Bleeding Red]

If you want what you consider the best coaching, then pay for it. The Laffs felt Babcock was the best and paid to get him. Fine by me. Torontonians don't consider "A+ Coaching" as the draw for players to come to Toronto. They see the city itself as the draw.

What does this cap accomplish? Keeps a few coaches underpaid? Keeps a few coaches/asst. GMs from working? Each team can only have a set number of office staff/scouts? Do you cap each position?

It would still favour rich teams - The Toronto Laffs corp. of massage therapists suddenly become employees of the NBA Raptors, which Laff players having access to them.

The Oil could employ 30 more people - won't make them any better.

[J79]

I bet Chiarelli would sign the oilers mascot 3 yrs, $4.5 mil AAV

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by J79

I bet Chiarelli would sign the oilers mascot 3 yrs, $4.5 mil AAV

#Insiderrrrrrrr

[PugnaciousIntern]

The Oilers are probably some of the higher earning front offices in total. So this would affect them the most. I vote no

[FlamesFanTrev]

I can't imagine that you would get a majority vote from the owners to get this cap in place. Teams spend what they can afford and what makes reasonable business sense for them. An operations cap would lead to a "NHLCA" coaching/operations union. If you want to insure works stoppages, get a third group involved in negotiations in time for the next CBA.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

The Oilers are probably some of the higher earning front offices in total. So this would affect them the most. I vote no

Agreed.

Can't see why anyone would want to help the oilers figure things out.

That would be tragic. Addition by subtraction would be the only thing to come of that

[flambers]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

The Oilers are probably some of the higher earning front offices in total. So this would affect them the most. I vote no

I doubt it, my guess the higher front office payroll are the Leafs.

[Matty81]

Personally I wouldn't like to see it but I'm not a fan of financial "equal playing fields" in sports. I think teams with more fans should be allowed to spend more money and teams where no one goes should suck.

Some form of equalization should be there to make sure it doesn't turn into a total borefest, but I hate leagues where there are drafts and spending controls. It's about 3 steps away from "everybody gets a turn to win" in the name of making money.

[Yrebmi]

I don't see it as being overly abused yet, so don't change it. If we see the day where one or more teams show obviously unfair advantage we revisit the idea.

[PepsiFree]

Seems like a solution in need of a problem.

[klikitiklik]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Personally I wouldn't like to see it but I'm not a fan of financial "equal playing fields" in sports. I think teams with more fans should be allowed to spend more money and teams where no one goes should suck.

Some form of equalization should be there to make sure it doesn't turn into a total borefest, but I hate leagues where there are drafts and spending controls. It's about 3 steps away from "everybody gets a turn to win" in the name of making money.

You'd want a soccer situation where only two teams ever make the final because NO ONE can keep up with the richest teams? That is the worst system ever. No one else even has a chance.

Yes please lets make it so only the New York Rangers and Toronto Maple leafs are ever in the cup final. Sounds like great viewing.

[Buff]

If you have a cap, do you also need a floor, like the players cap? If so, then a few teams will struggle even harder to make ends meet.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by klikitiklik

You'd want a soccer situation where only two teams ever make the final because NO ONE can keep up with the richest teams? That is the worst system ever. No one else even has a chance.

Yes please lets make it so only the New York Rangers and Toronto Maple leafs are ever in the cup final. Sounds like great viewing.

With some more basic controls it can be a great system.... some form of revenue sharing without completely eliminating any differences between the franchises that attract people to them and give them personality. Richer teams with more fans win more often but you want a system where poorer teams are competitive and can have windows if well managed instead of turning sports teams into a bunch of McDonalds franchises where the end goal is just to squeeze as much money out of us as possible by providing a uniform experience.

Hard cap and draft rewarding losing just dumb down the business of sports so much and rewards mediocrity and poor decisions, really feels like the intent is just to keep people with short attention spans engaged who won't stick with anybody but a winning team. Also for me the key is players should be coming up through local academy and development systems, its nonsense to be assigning them at random to communities they have no connection to based on failure. Ultimately they have our generation but a time will come when the teams will need to be more representative of the place they play for.

Anyway I think a non wage spending cap would just be another step towards sucking the personality out of sports.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Matty81

With some more basic controls it can be a great system.... some form of revenue sharing without completely eliminating any differences between the franchises that attract people to them and give them personality. Richer teams with more fans win more often but you want a system where poorer teams are competitive and can have windows if well managed instead of turning sports teams into a bunch of McDonalds franchises where the end goal is just to squeeze as much money out of us as possible by providing a uniform experience.

Hard cap and draft rewarding losing just dumb down the business of sports so much and rewards mediocrity and poor decisions, really feels like the intent is just to keep people with short attention spans engaged who won't stick with anybody but a winning team. Also for me the key is players should be coming up through local academy and development systems, its nonsense to be assigning them at random to communities they have no connection to based on failure. Ultimately they have our generation but a time will come when the teams will need to be more representative of the place they play for.

Anyway I think a non wage spending cap would just be another step towards sucking the personality out of sports.

Conflicting thoughts.

On one hand, franchises in the NHL go to markets that meet certain criteria. Players are sourced globally. It seems to be moving away from that.

On the other hand, Edmonton is no good.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Conflicting thoughts.

On one hand, franchises in the NHL go to markets that meet certain criteria. Players are sourced globally. It seems to be moving away from that.

On the other hand, Edmonton is no good.

I don't think every player needs to be from the area like Athletic Bilbao does or something but having a few locals who came up through the academy strengthens the link to the community, it's good for the business and the fans imo and another step towards making the teams more unique and the system more of a meritocracy then a participation circle.