OccamsRazor Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The point of the cap is to put a limit on how stacked a team can be.Not really there is a limit how stacked your team can be using dollars only...but it requires stacking with free agents and draft picks.Basicaly no more doing it the Bobby Clake/Holmgren way...buying guys because you can't draft.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyClarkeFan16 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The most successful sports model in the world has been the NFL and they've had a cap for years and years. Everyone deserves to make money. As much as I despise the owners, I also realize that they are the ones who risk the most and that they deserve to make money. Players also deserve to make money because they are the folks that people come to see. Do I think it sucks that success is often penalized in a cap system? Yep. The days of true dynasties are gone because now it's about allocating resources properly and wisely. Management (salary and player) has never been more important than it is now. However, for the greater good of the game, the cap is required to keep a competitive and balanced playing field. The only reason why there are some teams doing so poorly is due to management. Everyone has the same cap space to play with. Everyone has the same draft to use and everyone can make trades and sign free agents. How management uses those resources are what determines success and failure. Edmonton should be a reminder to all of that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The most successful sports model in the world has been the NFL and they've had a cap for years and years. Everyone deserves to make money. As much as I despise the owners, I also realize that they are the ones who risk the most and that they deserve to make money. Players also deserve to make money because they are the folks that people come to see. Do I think it sucks that success is often penalized in a cap system? Yep. The days of true dynasties are gone because now it's about allocating resources properly and wisely. Management (salary and player) has never been more important than it is now. However, for the greater good of the game, the cap is required to keep a competitive and balanced playing field. The only reason why there are some teams doing so poorly is due to management. Everyone has the same cap space to play with. Everyone has the same draft to use and everyone can make trades and sign free agents. How management uses those resources are what determines success and failure. Edmonton should be a reminder to all of that.Hockey has not had a Dynasty since the Oilers in any case. Well before the Salary cap era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yave1964 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Hockey has not had a Dynasty since the Oilers in any case. Well before the Salary cap era.Well if we are talking of the Hawks as a dynasty for 3 cups in 6 years, the Wings won 3 in six years between 97 and 02. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 The most successful sports model in the world has been the NFL and they've had a cap for years and years. Everyone deserves to make money. As much as I despise the owners, I also realize that they are the ones who risk the most and that they deserve to make money. Players also deserve to make money because they are the folks that people come to see. Do I think it sucks that success is often penalized in a cap system? Yep. the NFL can franchise tag players... there are ways in the NFL to keep your star players. they are allowed to restructure their contracts and cut players when needed. the NHL cannot. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 the NFL can franchise tag players... there are ways in the NFL to keep your star players. they are allowed to restructure their contracts and cut players when needed. the NHL cannot. I'd love for the NHL to adopt and NFL model but that only works in the NFL because the contracts (only bonuses) are not guaranteed. The players options are often take less via a restructured deal or get cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 the NFL can franchise tag players... there are ways in the NFL to keep your star players. they are allowed to restructure their contracts and cut players when needed. the NHL cannot. That's well said. These long term guaranteed contracts are killing the NHL. The thought of signing a player for 12 years was insane previously. The average NHL contract length was maybe 2 years, and this was in the 90's. Now you can't sign anyone unless you give them 5+ years. It's crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Sure. All they have to do is actually do it. Until then, the league is more valuable and more popular than it has ever been. ---- The entire league is set up so that each team has a reasonable chance of competing. If the NHL did nothing, that initial statement would hold true through inflation alone. You have to be careful with statements that compare financial figures to the past. Case in point: "Kids today earn more money than they ever have in history!" (Inflation) "There are more car crashes today than ever before in human history!" (How many people are driving?) How about setting the salary floor to 30 million and putting the ceiling at 100 million? Remember, the floor is what teams are forced to spend. That's the very bottom. Just because the floor is 30 mil doesn't mean teams will try to hit it. This would help cash strapped teams avoid bankruptcy by not having to spend tons of money when they go through a down period. They can shed payroll and rebuild. Meanwhile, good teams could load up for a Cup run. I miss those days. Edited June 2, 2015 by WordsOfWisdom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 As one arojnd here that uses the phrase "lies, damn liss and statistics" frequenly I see the point.But that doesn't change the fact that the businessmen who run the league see this as a good thing for the league as a whole - including the "rich" franchises.Could be that Comcast doesn't realize that they really aren't making more money off hockey than ever before.I doubt it, but it could be.The television ratings are definitely up because hockey is in more areas than ever before.Which in turn makes the league more valuable because it means more to more people.But, of course, only becuase there are more people than ever watching and following hockey... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Eliminate the cap and the Cup goes back to being a joke. Then it becomes he who spends the most wins. I have no respect for the majority of the original six teams' Cups because the league was so limited in opponents. Really? Montreal won again because....? I have next to no respect for a lot of championship teams created before the cap because they weren't always about the best management as much as the biggest checkbook. That's not sports to me, that's finances. The Hawks are earning a lot of respect right now. Granted the big contracts are about to change that, but if they get a third so close together while managing cap space?? That's respectable there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well if we are talking of the Hawks as a dynasty for 3 cups in 6 years, the Wings won 3 in six years between 97 and 02.Yes but that was without a salary cap...but none the less it like the Hawks is a small example of the balance that must be struck between free agency and drafting the right players....easier said then done.But the Hawks are about to be blown apart after this year.The only way to offset that is knowing who and when to sell off certain players for multiple assests to keep said wheel in motion.Perfect example someone said it somewhere the Hawks more than likely should have decided to just keep one of the two of Toews or Kane and the other one sold off for multiple assests for the restocking of the team and it would enable you possibly to keep a majority of the team intact.Yes easier said then done. Myself i would have kept Toews and sold Kane off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 the NFL can franchise tag players... there are ways in the NFL to keep your star players. they are allowed to restructure their contracts and cut players when needed. the NHL cannot.Yes perfect example in the NFL more than likely VLC, RJ and Mcdud get cut yes you would have to eat the signing bonus but it would be a small price to pay to be able to utilize your whole roster and cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Plus in the NFL there is no farm system to manage and stock...all you get is a great 10 man practice squad...and 53 man roster and can only dress 46 on game day....so precision is key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Mirtle: A Stanley Cup final of dynasties past, present and (maybe) futurehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/mirtle-a-stanley-cup-final-of-dynasties-past-present-and-maybe-future/article24715839/?service=mobileHhhhhhmmmmm....we were just talking about this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Didn't read through the whole thread, but I'm in favour of an outrageous luxury tax like they have in MLB. Funnel those funds to the bottom 10 teams in terms of revenue and call it a day! If the Flyers or anyone else want to exceed the cap, charge them 3 times the amount they are over the cap. There is enough rich teams that you'd have 6 or 7 going into the luxury tax, which in turn would give the 10 lightweights of the league to have the funds to spend up to the cap.. That way, some degree of parity is upheld and everyone is happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Didn't read through the whole thread, but I'm in favour of an outrageous luxury tax like they have in MLB. Funnel those funds to the bottom 10 teams in terms of revenue and call it a day! If the Flyers or anyone else want to exceed the cap, charge them 3 times the amount they are over the cap. There is enough rich teams that you'd have 6 or 7 going into the luxury tax, which in turn would give the 10 lightweights of the league to have the funds to spend up to the cap.. That way, some degree of parity is upheld and everyone is happy. God no. I hate the Yankees and the Red Sox for this reason...and I don't even watch baseball. Having teams spend 4 or 5 times what others do on a yearly basis is just wrong IMO. The playing field has to be somewhat level. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Why not let rich teams have a fourth forward - if they can afford it?Or a third defenseman - if they can afford it?I mean, teams with more money simply deserve a competitive advantage, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 @radoran Why not go back to letting the Habs have their first round pick AND the top French Canadian player each year? Toronto can have the right to turn down the best player from Ontario (we have enough defensive prospects, we don't need some kid from Parry Sound). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Why not let rich teams have a fourth forward - if they can afford it?Or a third defenseman - if they can afford it?I mean, teams with more money simply deserve a competitive advantage, right? How about this, for every game the richer team starts with a one goal advantage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 @radoran Why not go back to letting the Habs have their first round pick AND the top French Canadian player each year? Toronto can have the right to turn down the best player from Ontario (we have enough defensive prospects, we don't need some kid from Parry Sound). That's ridiculous. Something as arbitrary as geography should have absolutely no impact on competitive sporting events. But money? I mean, it's money. That's important. If you have more money you deserve a competitive advantage. How about this, for every game the richer team starts with a one goal advantage? This, too, is absurd. Why are you limiting the richer franchises to just one goal advantage? Why can't they simply buy goal advantages at a rate set by the league? They could give the money to the lesser franchises - with the proviso that it can't be used to buy goals against the richer team because that would be unfair to the richer franchises. Teams with more money deserve a competitive advantage. They just do. It's nature. Because. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Why can't they simply buy goal advantages at a rate set by the league? They could give the money to the lesser franchises - with the proviso that it can't be used to buy goals against the richer team because that would be unfair to the richer franchises. This is a brilliant idea. Simply brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 This thread just took a turn for the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 And now it's entertaining. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 @radoran I can't believe nobody thought of this before....buy a goal. It's like a vowel on Wheel of Fortune. And you could give the goal to whoever you wanted on your team (assists would cost extra). And they could auction off the Hart/Vezina/Norris etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 And they could auction off the Hart/Vezina/Norris etc. Again, you are taking this to levels of absurdity. How could they possibly auction off those trophies? Now, the Rocket Richard Trophy? There's a trophy to be bought! #richteamsdeservetrophies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.