NHL Cap - Keep, Amend, Turf

[metal_geek]

Keep....

I think they should make some kind of provision that draft picks are the only things that can be traded for cash. Allow for struggling teams the option to support or improve their payroll with "Cash" deals for picks. Cash spent on a "pick" should count towards the buying teams cap over the course of that player selected with that picks ELC...

It's a form of "Luxury tax" that can transfer cash to lower payroll teams but still prevent a wealthy team from just buying everything. Give teams that have success and well managed caps the options to improve through the draft. Lowers the Value of purchased ELC's on a wealthy teams success.

Shouldn't affect the overall player salaries, just transfer wealth to give players on smaller markets better contracts.

[Robbob]

Without a doubt keep. The cap has been around for almost 15 years. I think a good portion do not remember what it was like in the 90's when for a decade the CDN was hovering between 63-73 cents compared to US$ and most Canadian teams were development teams for the have teams. Back then UFA started a few years later so at the very least you could control the good players you developed.

Could you imagine how brutal it would for the have teams if there was no cap and the UFA age stayed as it currently does. Every UFA would hit the market instead of re-signing for that potential jackpot. Bobby Holik was making 9M in the old world. Do not want times infinity plus always one more than what you say.

[DJones]

Keep the cap.

Get rid of guaranteed contracts

[GreenLantern2814]

Personally, I think the NHL's salary cap is the best of the four majors. It's straightforward, it all fits on an easy-to-read chart on a web site, I understand how buyouts work, and you simply cannot go over the salary cap - when you do, you have to play a game with three lines and lose a division title to Vancouver.

Contrast that to the NFL, where there's dead money, teams somehow can have $60M in cap space, and bonuses etc have to be factored in... It's an unpleasant experience. Just like the actual NFL.

The NBA allegedy has a salary cap. I have no idea how it works, but Russell Westbrook makes $28 million, Lebron and Steph are over $30M and the NBA's versions of Troy Brouwer get 26 year old Jarome Iginla contracts.

Baseball's luxury tax is an embarrassment.

The salary cap is probably the best thing to happen to the NHL in the last thirty years.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DJones

Keep the cap.

Get rid of guaranteed contracts

lol. And what will you give the players in exchange for giving up guaranteed contracts?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

lol. And what will you give the players in exchange for giving up guaranteed contracts?

Teams will spend the same amount. It will just go to the better players.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DJones

Teams will spend the same amount. It will just go to the better players.

That's not an answer. In fact, it is less than an answer as your argument is "the players give up a right in exchange for literally nothing."

[dobbles]

Kinda surprised at all the comments about if we got rid of the cap, that the Leafs and Rangers would win all the time. Because in the pre-cap era they were already doing a pretty good job of being terrible. Heck, the Rangers had become a parody of themselves throwing around huge contracts that always blew up in their faces. Think about the top teams in the 20 years or so before the cap.

Islanders were large market but not really because of the Rangers.
Edmonton is not a large market.
Pittsburgh not a large market.
Detroit was one that benefited from their ability to spend.
New Jersey similar to the Islanders are in a large metro area but has never really operated by throwing huge piles of money around.
Colorado is not a large market.

Conversely a few commented that the Blackhawks would have been amazing if not for the cap. I would imagine they would have had the same issues. With no cap all their players would have been looking for paydays and went elsewhere. Regardless of cap, teams that can develop talent and replace players that leave with cheaper versions are the ones that succeed. The cap is just a way to ensure it stays that way.

That's why overall I like the cap as it makes teams be smart about player management. I think the fact that teams were able to exploit loopholes for so long made it less effective than it could have been. As they continue to remove those (burying salaries in minors, front loaded term, etc) it is finally getting to a point where you see good management rewarded. At the end of the day, the games are won by teams and players doing better than their opposition. Shouldn't it be like that at the management level as well?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's not an answer. In fact, it is less than an answer as your argument is "the players give up a right in exchange for literally nothing."

The better players would get paid more.

If there wasn't so much useless dead cap teams could throw out short term but higher AAV contracts.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Explain to me which MLB owners would want the NHL system?

Would it be the bottom 10 revenue MLB teams? In the MLB, that group averaged an operating income of 23 million on average revenue of $234 million. Also 3 of those teams qualified for the postseason this year in a league where only 8 teams qualify.

The bottom 10 in the NHL by revenue averaged a operating income of negative $600,000 (which was propped up by the Oilers making $15 million) on average revenues of $109 million. Only 2 of those teams qualified for the post season last year in a league where 16 teams make the playoffs.

The NHL is not a healthy league, and is headed for further labour disruptions and the bottom third of franchises are going to be in a lot of trouble when the tv money starts to dry up.

You think having a hard cap is causing NHL revenue to decrease or would cause MLB revenue to decrease? If MLB could lower player wages they'd do it in a second - if they didn't care we'd never have lockouts or strikes in these leagues.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DJones

The better players would get paid more.

If there wasn't so much useless dead cap teams could throw out short term but higher AAV contracts.

You keep trying to re-word it, but the fact remains you are proposing a benefit to the owners that does not benefit the players.

1. They don't care that Troy Brouwer is overpaid. They care only that he is paid. the NHLPA is not going to support simply allowing any player to be cut because his contract became inconvenient. And the 95% of the union that is not the star players are not about to throw away their most important guarantee because you are miffed that Troy Brouwer is overpaid.

2. The players don't want short-term contracts. They want the security of long term contracts.

So the question remains, what are you (more accurately: the owners) willing to give up that would entice the players to accept non-guaranteed contracts?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You think having a hard cap is causing NHL revenue to decrease or would cause MLB revenue to decrease? If MLB could lower player wages they'd do it in a second - if they didn't care we'd never have lockouts or strikes in these leagues.

Relative to revenues, MLB's wages very much are in decline. In fact, an NHL style salary cap would benefit the players to the tune of several hundred million dollars.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Relative to revenues, MLB's wages very much are in decline. In fact, an NHL style salary cap would benefit the players to the tune of several hundred million dollars.

You are right here, it would be the NHL cap floor that would hurt MLB teams, not the cap.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You think having a hard cap is causing NHL revenue to decrease or would cause MLB revenue to decrease? If MLB could lower player wages they'd do it in a second - if they didn't care we'd never have lockouts or strikes in these leagues.

I'm comparing the 2 models as a whole. If you are saying that they MLB owners would jump at the NHL's system, then they also have to take everything that goes with that. That means giving up on revenue sharing, giving up on better contract controls for players, and the rest of things they enjoy that allow the bottom third to be as profitable as the top third of the league.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You keep trying to re-word it, but the fact remains you are proposing a benefit to the owners that does not benefit the players.

1. They don't care that Troy Brouwer is overpaid. They care only that he is paid. the NHLPA is not going to support simply allowing any player to be cut because his contract became inconvenient. And the 95% of the union that is not the star players are not about to throw away their most important guarantee because you are miffed that Troy Brouwer is overpaid.

2. The players don't want short-term contracts. They want the security of long term contracts.

So the question remains, what are you (more accurately: the owners) willing to give up that would entice the players to accept non-guaranteed contracts?

They don't have to give up ####. Demand they only get 48% if they don't take the deal. Demand 5% goes to arena funding. Just make up demands haha.

They're giving the union the same amount of money. It's not a hill they are going to die on.

Hell, the vast majority of 28-33 year old veterans would love it. They can get paid what they are worth until they aren't without having to go UFA every year. Take Turris for example. He could get another million a year from Ottawa if it wasn't all guaranteed. Not to mention insurance could still be placed on a non guaranteed contract for injuries.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You are right here, it would be the NHL cap floor that would hurt MLB teams, not the cap.

Caps work as a bit of a magnet, especially when combined with the floor. Teams will tend to spend up to the cap knowing their is a maximum to control their foolishness.

The salary cap removes one aspect of the free market system. NHL teams don't have the ability to correct their salaries for the market if they realize they are pricing themselves too high. The only way for them to increase profits is to increase revenues, as their expenses are locked. That leads to ticket price escalation and when that tops out they are begging for public funding for new arenas to increase that revenue. The only other option is to endure another lockout to try to decrease the players cut. These are all things we've seen in hockey far too often.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Caps work as a bit of a magnet, especially when combined with the floor. Teams will tend to spend up to the cap knowing their is a maximum to control their foolishness.

The salary cap removes one aspect of the free market system. NHL teams don't have the ability to correct their salaries for the market if they realize they are pricing themselves too high. The only way for them to increase profits is to increase revenues, as their expenses are locked. That leads to ticket price escalation and when that tops out they are begging for public funding for new arenas to increase that revenue. The only other option is to endure another lockout to try to decrease the players cut. These are all things we've seen in hockey far too often.

This post should be repeated on every page of this discussion.
Thanks

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The cap is the best thing to happen to the NHL in a long time. Chicago would have won every cup from their first one forward if they were able to keep all their players. Makes for tough decisions and allows the smart GM's to build teams that can win repeatedly.

For parity they should make everyone use Chicago's fax machine.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by DJones

They don't have to give up ####. Demand they only get 48% if they don't take the deal. Demand 5% goes to arena funding. Just make up demands haha.

This appears to be a nice delusion you are having but it shows you have zero understanding about collective bargaining.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DJones

They're giving the union the same amount of money. It's not a hill they are going to die on.

It very much was a hill they were willing to die on in 2004-05, and it is a hill they would be willing to die on now.

I mean, maybe if the owners offered to give the players 80% of HRR in exchange, they'd do it. But there honestly is nothing in the realm of reason that the owners could offer which the players would accept to give up guaranteed contracts.