The Salary Cap is stupid

[WordsOfWisdom]

The idea that because one team simply has more money than another they should be able to paper over their mistakes and miscues is anathema to competitive sport.

 

Again, why I don't watch baseball anymore. It's not a level playing field. It's a joke.

 

 

But you have to admit, baseball is fun to watch for the fans living in the cities that can afford to spend anything on payroll.  (New York, Boston, LA, etc.) The fact that all the other stadiums are empty doesn't seem to matter to MLB. It's a joke, but that's MLB.

 

I just think it would be fun to be "the evil empire" for a change, and to crush everyone else like ants. That would be very fulfilling. 

 

Being more like Star Wars instead of Space Balls would be a welcome change. (Shameless old movie analogy.)

Edited June 5, 2015 by WordsOfWisdom

[radoran]

I agree the cap isn't the only reason, but you can't say a salary cap wouldn't hurt the Yankees. Any system that prevents the highest spending teams from spending will hurt the highest spending teams.

 

No, it doesn't. Bad management hurts the highest spending teams. Period.

 

Case in point: The Flyers spent more money than anyone else last season and they didn't even make the playoffs. Why? Because they had a terrible GM who hamstrung the team with stupid moves and bad signings.

 

Sound familiar?

 

The Leafs have been woeful because their management - top to bottom, back to front - has been woeful. They could have spent twice as much money and they would still be terrible. Because their management is terrible.

 

Money doesn't change that.

 

Minnesota, Anaheim, the Islanders, Jets, Predators, Senators and Flames all spent less than the Leafs last season. All of them were in the playoffs. Why? Because they had good management who made good moves and built a winning team.

 

Toronto could do that - but they don't need to because there are boatloads of fans who will pay top dollar to watch a woeful franchise flop like a fish on the deck of a trawler.

 

And their fans apparently believe that it's "the cap" that is preventing them from winning.

 

That is a joke - and not a good one.

 

But you have to admit, baseball is fun to watch for the fans living in the cities that can afford to spend anything on payroll.  (New York, Boston, LA, etc.) The fact that all the other stadiums are empty doesn't seem to matter to MLB. It's a joke, but that's MLB.

 

I just think it would be fun to be "the empire" for a change, and to crush everyone else like ants. That would be very fulfilling. 

 

The Phillies are spending $107 million this season and they are woeful. Why? Because of bad management. And the fans are staying away in droves because they're not lemmings. The Phillies' GM also publicly attacked the fans for "not knowing the game." You know what? The fans do know the game and they know Ruben Amaro, Jr. is a hack who is a terrible GM.

 

The Yankees are spending three times what the Rays are spending and they are half a game in front of Tampa Bay. And they're built upon steroid abusing cheaters.

 

Any "competitive sports" league that allows teams to outspend other teams by factors of 3, 4, 5 times isn't a "competitive sports" league. It's a joke.

 

Hockey isn't a joke.

 

Don't try to make it one.

[B21]

But I think the point is..... fans root for Chicago. Even non-Blackhawks fans are rooting for Chicago right now. They like the dynasty as much as anyone else. I'm not sure the same can be said of Toronto. I don't think people ever root for Toronto (outside of Leafs fans). I don't think anyone wants to see the Leafs in the playoffs ever again... outside of Leafs fans.

 

It's a very different dichotomy and it's puzzling.

 

I remember people cheering for New York when they ended their Cup drought in 1994. Most of the time, fans want to see streaks like that end. 

 

I'm not rooting for Chicago.  If I had to guess, I'd say fans of the other 28 teams are leaning towards the Bolts.  Fans like underdogs. 

 

As for the Rangers, I think that was more about Messier than the Rangers though I can almost guarantee that any hockey fan north of Mason-Dixon and east of the PA/Ohio border was pulling hard for the 'Nucks.

 

I thought Toronto was Canada's team?   

[WordsOfWisdom]

No, it doesn't. Bad management hurts the highest spending teams. Period.

 

Case in point: The Flyers spent more money than anyone else last season and they didn't even make the playoffs. Why? Because they had a terrible GM who hamstrung the team with stupid moves and bad signings.

 

Sound familiar?

 

...

 

The Yankees are spending three times what the Rays are spending and they are half a game in front of Tampa Bay. And they're built upon steroid abusing cheaters.

 

Any "competitive sports" league that allows teams to outspend other teams by factors of 3, 4, 5 times isn't a "competitive sports" league. It's a joke.

 

 

The following statements simply cannot be disputed:

• Bad management hurts all teams. (We've seen countless examples of this at both ends.)
• A salary cap, luxury tax, and revenue sharing work to eliminate the advantage that the most free-spending teams would otherwise have. (You already admitted that you don't watch baseball because of the discrepancy between rich and poor team payrolls.)
• A salary floor hurts the poorest of teams by forcing them to overspend on payroll.

Also, I'm not sure who said it (about the NHL being more popular and more profitable than ever before) but the exact same thing can be said of Major League Baseball. Overall profits for MLB are higher than they have ever been, and MLB does not have a salary cap. That means the "NHL profit argument" is no longer valid. I just disproved it by counterexample. Who knew I would ever use a mathematical proof technique in a hockey forum. Awesome!

 

To clarify, you (or someone) made the argument that:

 

P1. The NHL has a salary cap.

P2. The salary cap creates competitive balance.

P3. Only a league with competitive balance can be profitable (implied, unstated premise)

 

C. The NHL is profitable because it has a salary cap.

 

Disproved by the fact that MLB does not have a salary cap and has achieved the same positive financial results (even more so than the NHL), thereby removing the salary cap as the causal factor in the NHL's current financial situation.

Edited June 5, 2015 by WordsOfWisdom

[radoran]

That means the "NHL profit argument" is no longer valid. I just disproved it by counterexample.

 

That's just great. Bully for you.

 

Now get on the phone to Bettman and alert him. Then get a voting majority of the owners to agree with you.

 

Because, see, I didn't lose a season and a half of hockey specifically to impose a salary cap on the players.

 

The NHL and its owners did.

 

I'm sure once you tell them their argument is completely invalid, they'll turn around and realize the obvious error of their ways.

 

Be sure you let us know how that goes, eh?

[JackStraw]

Stupid thread is stupid. The NHL salary cap is not going away. Deal with it.

[JR Ewing]

I'm not rooting for Chicago.  If I had to guess, I'd say fans of the other 28 teams are leaning towards the Bolts.  Fans like underdogs. 

 

As for the Rangers, I think that was more about Messier than the Rangers though I can almost guarantee that any hockey fan north of Mason-Dixon and east of the PA/Ohio border was pulling hard for the 'Nucks.

 

I thought Toronto was Canada's team?   

 

I can't cheer for the Canucks. Just not in my DNA.

Rangers? Not with a core that was greatly comprised of my own team's group.

 

I watched with distaste.

[WordsOfWisdom]

That's just great. Bully for you.

 

Now get on the phone to Bettman and alert him. Then get a voting majority of the owners to agree with you.

 

Because, see, I didn't lose a season and a half of hockey specifically to impose a salary cap on the players.

 

The NHL and its owners did.

 

I'm sure once you tell them their argument is completely invalid, they'll turn around and realize the obvious error of their ways.

 

Be sure you let us know how that goes, eh?

 

That's because in a cap system player salaries are limited while owner salaries are unlimited.  That's why the owners fought for it.   

 

(Granted, they shot themselves in the foot by having such a high floor, but that's just the owners being dumb.)

[WordsOfWisdom]

Stupid thread is stupid. The NHL salary cap is not going away. Deal with it.

 

You never know what can happen. (Other than NHL lockouts, which we know are guaranteed to happen lol.) 

 

AIDS and cancer aren't going away either. Let's all stop talking about those topics. Whaaaat? That's not a reason to avoid discussing something. 

 

This is a thread specifically created to discuss the salary cap! 

[B21]

I can't cheer for the Canucks. Just not in my DNA.

Rangers? Not with a core that was greatly comprised of my own team's group.

 

I watched with distaste.

 

I think British Columbia is well west of the PA/Ohio border. 

Edited June 6, 2015 by B21

[JR Ewing]

I think British Columbia is well west of the PA/Ohio border. 

 

I'm just telling you why I couldn't cheer for either team.

[Commander Clueless]

(Steps on soapbox...)

 

 

I guess I'm the only person in this thread that thinks I should get what I pay for. 

 

Would you pay $100,000 for a Hyundai Accent when everyone else is paying $15,000?

 

Would you pay $25 for a cab ride if the bus arrived sooner and got you to your destination faster?

 

Would you pay $100 for a meal if they served you McDonalds fries and McNuggets? (And made you fill your own drinks.)

 

Would you pay $350 to watch Phil Kessel?

 

 

 

(Has tantrum, falls off soapbox, takes ball, goes home.)  

 

That really depends on how many McNuggets I'm getting. 

[radoran]

That's because in a cap system player salaries are limited while owner salaries are unlimited.  That's why the owners fought for it. 

 

(Granted, they shot themselves in the foot by having such a high floor, but that's just the owners being dumb.)

 

And your point is...?

 

You had just asserted that you had invalidated the entire argument in favor of the salary cap (to be clear, you didn't, but that's a story for another time...)

 

And your "unlimited" argument is also fallacious - the owners as a whole are capped at a percentage of total league revenue - that was an important part of the "negotiations"

[WordsOfWisdom]

That really depends on how many McNuggets I'm getting. 

 

A 6-pack of McNuggets that have been sitting on the rack for two hours and are only slightly warm.

[WordsOfWisdom]

And your point is...?

 

My point is that the owners fought for the current system because it potentially gives them more money and less to the players.

 

They didn't do it to make everyone richer. They did it to make themselves richer.

 

Didn't they reduce the percentage that goes to the players?

Edited June 9, 2015 by WordsOfWisdom

[fanaticV3.0]

 

I write this not as a disgruntled Flyers fan, but as a fan of great teams.

This current version of the chicago blackhawks is about the best a team can be built under the current NHL salary cap.

Yet, this is it for the 'hawks, they need to win now because their team will look vastly different  next season and not in a good way, Unless some lawyers can find some serious loop holes a team that was built by Tallon and Stan Bowman over the course of the last 10 years  will be dismantled.  The LA Kings are another team in a similar boat , not exactly but they too are in salary cap hell and will have to make major changes to a team largely built through the draft, with the well timed trade.

 

I think this is stupid. 

I wonder if the next go 'round with the CBA if an NBA type salary cap could be instituted ?

teams like Chicago could certainly benefit from the Larry Bird exemption, the 5/30% exemption, a yearly mid-level exemption, and a rookie exemption at the least.

I hate the thought of the 'hawks not having the room to pay for Brandon Saad even though they have the money and all things being equal he'd like to continue to play on this great team. It just seems stupid to me to draft a guy, develop him and then watch him play his prime  years somewhere else because of the salary cap.  

 

Their best players are their draft picks and you want to keep Jesus Towes and Patrick Kane right ?  hell yes. Something is not right about the salary cap when a team plays within the rules and is still penalized. 

 

The cap isn't the issue, the players salaries are. Player greed, while not the only issue, is the biggest problem here. Guys want more money regardless of what level of player they are, their production, or their team's situation. The salary cap exists because of player greed.

[radoran]

The salary cap exists because of player greed.

 

The salary cap exists because owners keep offering ridiculous contracts to players.

 

There are far more examples of owners offering stupid money to players than there are examples of players "holding teams hostage."

 

And in the most egregious cases - say, MacDonald, Petry, etc. - it was the team putting itself into a ridiculously bad negotiating position in the first place that enabled "player greed" to enter the equation.

 

"We made a bad trade," they say "and now we need to overpay you because of our mistake."

 

I can't blame a Jagr for signing that ridiculous offer from the Capitals; or Bryzgalov accepting the Flyers' offer; or Weber for signing an offer sheet from another owner.

 

I can blame a Kane/Toews (or Crosby/Malkin to a lesser extent) for putting their myopic salary desires ahead of the team as a whole, but I can also blame the owner that gave into their demands. The two are far from mutually exclusive.

 

Chicago could potentially, for example, have gotten picks and more from, say, a Buffalo for hometown boy Kane that could have provided them long term benefits for a short term PR hit.

 

The "player greed" has seen their share of the "hockey related revenue" go from unlimited to 54% to 50% over the course of the past ten years.

 

Greedy bastards.

 

Meanwhile the owners have gotten a hard cap on player salaries and a guaranteed 50/50 split of "hockey related revenue" and the ability to rake in more "non-hockey related revenue."

 

Shrewd businessmen.

 

[fanaticV3.0]

The salary cap exists because owners keep offering ridiculous contracts to players.

 

There are far more examples of owners offering stupid money to players than there are examples of players "holding teams hostage."

 

And in the most egregious cases - say, MacDonald, Petry, etc. - it was the team putting itself into a ridiculously bad negotiating position in the first place that enabled "player greed" to enter the equation.

 

"We made a bad trade," they say "and now we need to overpay you because of our mistake."

 

I can't blame a Jagr for signing that ridiculous offer from the Capitals; or Bryzgalov accepting the Flyers' offer; or Weber for signing an offer sheet from another owner.

 

I can blame a Kane/Toews (or Crosby/Malkin to a lesser extent) for putting their myopic salary desires ahead of the team as a whole, but I can also blame the owner that gave into their demands. The two are far from mutually exclusive.

 

Chicago could potentially, for example, have gotten picks and more from, say, a Buffalo for hometown boy Kane that could have provided them long term benefits for a short term PR hit.

 

The "player greed" has seen their share of the "hockey related revenue" go from unlimited to 54% to 50% over the course of the past ten years.

 

Greedy bastards.

 

Meanwhile the owners have gotten a hard cap on player salaries and a guaranteed 50/50 split of "hockey related revenue" and the ability to rake in more "non-hockey related revenue."

 

Shrewd businessmen.

 

 

So what? That's nothing more than bonus money. It's not not their sole source - or even primary - of income. They all get salaries and we all know they haven't gone down over the last decade. Let them wipe away their tears from the loss of league revenue with all the extra dollar bills from their inflated paychecks.

[thegx.ca]

Yeah I hate the salary cap too.

 

 

[thegx.ca]

Article copied and pasted from the internet:

 

5 takeaways from Nylander's extension with Leafs

The Toronto Maple Leafs signed winger William Nylander to a franchise-record eight-year, $92-million extension Monday. Several ramifications from the deal affect the Leafs and the rest of the league. Let's dive in.

Leafs pay top-end value for another star player

Mark Blinch / National Hockey League / Getty
Nylander is amid his best season, tallying 21 goals and 33 assists through 37 games, tying him with Connor McDavid for the fifth-most points in the league. Leafs fans should be ecstatic that a homegrown star wants to spend his entire career in Toronto.

But the Leafs aren't exactly getting any hometown discount here.

Nylander entered this season having never finished higher than 20th in league scoring. Since his emergence in 2021-22, he ranks 14th in points. Still, Nylander's $11.5-million cap hit will tie him for the fifth-highest-paid player in the league.

The most recent comparable is David Pastrnak - he and Nylander are the same age and play the same position. Signed 10 months ago, Pastrnak's deal with the Boston Bruins was also for eight years but with an $11.25-million cap hit. However, Pastrnak already had a 48-goal, 95-point campaign under his belt and was amid a season in which he finished as the Hart Trophy runner-up.

Pastrnak's pact was worth 13.64% of the cap ceiling when he signed the contract (13.5% of 2023-24's cap). Nylander's deal is worth 13.77% of this season's cap ceiling and 13.1% of 2024-25's projected cap. In a nutshell, the contracts are mighty close despite Pastrnak's longer track record of elite production.

Perhaps the Leafs could've saved about a million dollars per year had they reached an agreement with Nylander in the offseason. But this has been a consistent theme for an organization that hasn't been able to win negotiations with Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner, either, relative to other superstars around the league.

Getting Nylander signed is still far better than the alternative of trading him or letting him walk, and it shouldn't be a poor contract by any stretch. However, Nylander's camp clearly didn't do the Leafs any favors given that the deal also contains a full no-movement clause and bonus-heavy structure. No one should blame Nylander considering Marner and Matthews did the same thing, though. Why should he be the one to cave? Toronto just doesn't have the cap culture other teams do in which stars are open to taking slightly less for the group's betterment.

What does this mean for Marner?

Claus Andersen / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Speaking of Marner, he's up next for the Leafs. Marner and John Tavares will be eligible to sign extensions on July 1 before becoming unrestricted free agents in 2025. Tavares will be in his mid-30s and likely sign for far cheaper than his current $11-millon cap hit if he stays in Toronto. The same can't be said for Marner.

Marner took the Leafs for every dollar on his current contract, receiving a $10.9-million cap hit over six years. His next deal may not be much higher considering the cap has barely increased since then.

If Nylander continues at his current pace for the rest of the season and finishes with around 120 points, it'll be tough for Marner to justify exceeding Nylander's cap-hit percentage. Marner has never recorded 100 points in a campaign.

Marner is a better defensive player than Nylander, but contracts are often based on production. Marner could go off in the second half or have a torrid start to 2024-25, but if he doesn't, his next contract should come with a cap hit far closer to Nylander's than to Matthews' $13.25M AAV. Reports indicated that Marner wanted his current deal to be paid closer to Matthews' previous contract. That's difficult to imagine this time around, with Nylander pulling himself ahead of Marner this season.

Pettersson seeing dollar signs

Derek Cain / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Vancouver Canucks superstar Elias Pettersson is likely next in line to cash in. Pettersson won't be a UFA until 2025, but he's a pending restricted free agent eligible to sign an extension at any time. Nylander's deal should be music to the ears of Pettersson's camp.

Pettersson is coming off a 102-point season and is on pace for triple-digit points again. Not only is Pettersson two years younger than Nylander, but he also plays the much more valuable position of center. And Pettersson has a strong two-way game that resulted in a seventh-place finish in Selke Trophy voting last year.

If Pettersson signs for the maximum eight-year term on his next deal, the cap hit should start with a 12. He deserves it.

2024 UFA class gets weaker

Megan Briggs / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Nylander was the cream of the crop among the 2024 UFA class. There are some intriguing names after him, but Nylander was the one star player who could've single-handedly transformed a franchise.

While nobody else in the class deserves to reach Nylander's $11.5-million cap hit, his contract should help other pending UFAs maximize their full earning potential.

Players like Sam Reinhart and Jake Guentzel, both in their primes, should see handsome paydays. The same goes for productive veterans Steven Stamkos, Matt Duchene, and Jonathan Marchessault on shorter-term deals if they test the market.

Hard salary cap remains bad for hockey

Jeff Bottari / National Hockey League / Getty
Fans and media members are guilty of analyzing and debating the salary when a contract like Nylander's is signed. But it's a fair thing to want to do in a league with a hard cap where every $100,000 is mightily important.

It shouldn't be that way, though. Fans, in particular, should be able to enjoy a player committing to their favorite team instead of nitpicking over the details.

The NHL is the only major sports league with a hard salary cap, and it lags significantly behind the NFL, NBA, and MLB when it comes to player salaries. Poor marketing is partly to blame, but there are other reasons. For example, the aforementioned notion that star players should take slightly less for the group's betterment wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for the hard cap.

Although highly unlikely under current commissioner Gary Bettman, adding a luxury tax system would be a great starting point to allow stars to get their full worth, reward successful franchises, and allow teams greater cap flexibility. Greater cap flexibility could lead to more player movement and, thus, more fan engagement.

[thegx.ca]

Added the pointers to the salary cap criticism I wanted to emphasise...