NHL Cap - Keep, Amend, Turf

[Timbo]

There is no "Turf" in ice hockey, Duh!

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

Veterans have to see the writing on the wall. The days of big guaranteed contracts are coming to an end.

Won't be long until they are the ones asking for this. Half the 30 year olds in the NHL are going to get their careers cut short.

[Weitz]

I think too many NHL cities are 'fair weather fans' these days to get rid of the cap. If your team has no chance to be good tons of fans would stop going. And that includes Canadian cities too.

[GreenLantern2814]

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.

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.

Every single NFL player would prefer guaranteed contracts over the shenanigans they put up with now. Every. Single. One.

The union has to agree to non-guaranteed contracts, and they never will. The owners have nothing to offer that's worth a guaranteed contract.

No way Jonathan Toews is happy forgoing the last five years of an $80M contract because Stan Bowman realised he's paying $10.5/per for a 60 point centre.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

For me? Don't care about their window length. The NHL though? I'm guessing they'd like the Blackhawks window to be open until somewhere around 2399.

As nfotiu points out, the luxury tax in baseball makes every team money.

Revenue sharing is what makes every MLB team money. MLB takes 31 percent of each team's net local revenue, pools it, and divides it equally among all the teams. The small markets (plus franchises going through rebuilds) are then able to pocket a chunk of that money, because there is no salary floor to make them spend it on player salaries.

The NHL has tons of money losers. I betcha most of those owners would gladly trade the Blackhawks or Leafs dominating the sport for profitability. I hope people aren't offended that sports leagues number one goal isn't competitive balance or a fair system.

Sports fans want competitive balance and a fair system. If you piss off the paying customers, you wind up going out of business.

Business is business, and that's what sports leagues are. And if it's better for the bottom lines of all teams to have the big market clubs dominate, then that's likely the system we'll see.

But we have no evidence at all that this is better for the bottom lines of all teams. We have direct evidence to the contrary. Before the 2004 lockout, an actual majority of teams were losing money. It was a vicious cycle: lose money, cut payroll, lose your best players to big markets, lose fan support, lose more money. It was widely known (and a subject of constant complaint among the customers) that the small-market clubs were functioning as unofficial farm teams for the eight or ten rich organizations that had a legitimate shot at winning.

It doesn't matter that the Rangers and Leafs were not winning championships under the old system. It matters very much that except for the New Jersey Devils (who were managed by a mad genius), every team that won the Stanley Cup under the 1995 CBA had a payroll in the top third of the league. You couldn't buy a championship, because several other teams were trying to do the same; but if you didn't try to buy a championship, that guaranteed that you would not win.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

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.

Most of the arenas built with public funding were built when there was no salary cap. Only six of the current NHL arenas have been built since 2004, and one of those, Barclays Center, was not built for hockey. Twenty-three NHL arenas were opened from 1993 to 2004, when there was no salary cap. Obviously it is not the salary cap that sends owners begging for public money.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Revenue sharing is what makes every MLB team money. MLB takes 31 percent of each team's net local revenue, pools it, and divides it equally among all the teams. The small markets (plus franchises going through rebuilds) are then able to pocket a chunk of that money, because there is no salary floor to make them spend it on player salaries.



Sports fans want competitive balance and a fair system. If you piss off the paying customers, you wind up going out of business.



But we have no evidence at all that this is better for the bottom lines of all teams. We have direct evidence to the contrary. Before the 2004 lockout, an actual majority of teams were losing money. It was a vicious cycle: lose money, cut payroll, lose your best players to big markets, lose fan support, lose more money. It was widely known (and a subject of constant complaint among the customers) that the small-market clubs were functioning as unofficial farm teams for the eight or ten rich organizations that had a legitimate shot at winning.

It doesn't matter that the Rangers and Leafs were not winning championships under the old system. It matters very much that except for the New Jersey Devils (who were managed by a mad genius), every team that won the Stanley Cup under the 1995 CBA had a payroll in the top third of the league. You couldn't buy a championship, because several other teams were trying to do the same; but if you didn't try to buy a championship, that guaranteed that you would not win.



Most of the arenas built with public funding were built when there was no salary cap. Only six of the current NHL arenas have been built since 2004, and one of those, Barclays Center, was not built for hockey. Twenty-three NHL arenas were opened from 1993 to 2004, when there was no salary cap. Obviously it is not the salary cap that sends owners begging for public money.

Maybe that was a stretch on my part, but the bottom third of the nhl are paying 60-75% of their revenues to salaries. And the bottom half are all paying more than half. It doesn't take much math to realize those teams will never be able to afford to put much into a building.

Revenue sharing is definitely a key part of MLB's functional system. That combined with better player controls and the luxury tax make for a fairly balanced league. Most teams are making money, most teams can compete by patiently developing players and their labour situation is peaceful and solid.

The NHL's system never looked sustainable. The bottom third is paying 75% of their revenues to salaries, while the top teams are paying 35%. The bottom third owners can't be happy with the current situation and will continue to push for the cap to come down to a level they can afford. If the NHL was set on a hard cap based on the average teams revenue, they needed to average out the revenue too. They wanted to be like the NFL, but it works in the NFL because so much of the money is made nationally. The NHL will continue to have work stoppages after work stoppages, and franchises moving, folding or threatening to move and it is going to get ugly when the local TV money dries up in many American markets.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Maybe that was a stretch on my part, but the bottom third of the nhl are paying 60-75% of their revenues to salaries. And the bottom half are all paying more than half. It doesn't take much math to realize those teams will never be able to afford to put much into a building.

Revenue sharing is definitely a key part of MLB's functional system. That combined with better player controls and the luxury tax make for a fairly balanced league. Most teams are making money, most teams can compete by patiently developing players and their labour situation is peaceful and solid.

The NHL's system never looked sustainable. The bottom third is paying 75% of their revenues to salaries, while the top teams are paying 35%. The bottom third owners can't be happy with the current situation and will continue to push for the cap to come down to a level they can afford. If the NHL was set on a hard cap based on the average teams revenue, they needed to average out the revenue too. They wanted to be like the NFL, but it works in the NFL because so much of the money is made nationally. The NHL will continue to have work stoppages after work stoppages, and franchises moving, folding or threatening to move and it is going to get ugly when the local TV money dries up in many American markets.

All this I agree with.

The problem at present, as far as I can tell, is that about half of the NHL's net income is earned by a handful teams at the top of the heap: the Leafs, Habs, and Rangers. The other teams could vote 27 to 3 to institute MLB-style revenue sharing, but the big three simply would refuse to participate. They could plausibly threaten to take away their audiences and their media markets, start a new league, and let the rest of the NHL share their losses as equally as they pleased.

There's an old saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. But it doesn't work any better if you have two sheep and a wolf. The sheep can cast all the votes they please, but how are they going to enforce their decisions when the wolf wants fresh mutton?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DJones

Veterans have to see the writing on the wall. The days of big guaranteed contracts are coming to an end.

Won't be long until they are the ones asking for this. Half the 30 year olds in the NHL are going to get their careers cut short.

Dude. Those are the exact guys who would die under your plan. And you're sitting here trying to spin this as a positive for them.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Dude. Those are the exact guys who would die under your plan. And you're sitting here trying to spin this as a positive for them.

Sounds like true conservatism to me.