×
Jump to content
Play Pick'em Daily Read more... ×

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
Sign in to follow this  
mojo1917

The Salary Cap is stupid

Recommended Posts

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.  :D

 

Being more like Star Wars instead of Space Balls would be a welcome change. (Shameless old movie analogy.) :cool[1]:

Edited by WordsOfWisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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.  :D

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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. :mellow:

 

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?  ;)  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :cool[1]:

 

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 by WordsOfWisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  ;)  :ph34r:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  :rolleyes: 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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!  :blink[1]:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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 by B21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

(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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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. :thumbsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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 by WordsOfWisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

nhlmoney.jpg

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

 

:hocky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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.

 

:hocky:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 4
      Post
      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.
    • 3
      Post
      The owners don't give a rat's behind about the fans because they've come back time (94-95) and time (04-05) and time again (12-13).   Heck, fans in Tronno pay top dollar to watch a team that hasn't even been to the Final in a league with more than six teams. Still. Every year.   What sort of things do you foresee them "demanding" and how, exactly, would these "demands" be presented?   By all accounts, it was owners like Snider (Philadelphia), Jacobs (Boston) and Wirtz (Chicago) that were masterminds behind the drive for "cost certainty" and a "hard cap" - why would these guys change their tunes? Those are three of the "richest markets" in hockey.   http://www.masslive.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/01/boston_bruins_owner_jeremy_jac.html     By virtually every standard - revenue, ratings, team value, etc. - the league is in better shape today than it was before the first lockout. Arguably the best shape it has ever been in.   What's the driving force making the owners want to change that?
    • 3
      Post
      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.
    • 2
      Post
      All I'll say about the Yankees is I can't stand them. Theres no sportsmanship in outspending every team not named Red Sox for every good player.
    • 2
      Post
      Stupid thread is stupid. The NHL salary cap is not going away. Deal with it.
    • 1
      Post
      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. 

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 

Contact Us

 

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×