There could be another lockout after this season.

[Paparanger]

I’m going to use the New York Rangers as an example because this is the team that I follow, but this post deals pretty much with all thirty-one NHL teams.

 

I receive push notifications on my Android phone for subjects that I am interested in. One of those subjects is the NHL. The last push notification I received concerning the NHL stated that after this upcoming season the NHLPA has the option of terminating the current CBA. This option is also extended to the NHL. So, if the NHLPA terminates the CBA it is a work stoppage. But, if the NHL terminates the CBA it is a lockout. (Po-ta-toe - PoTah-toe)  The article goes on to say that around ninety-five percent of the players are disgruntled because of the fifteen percent escrow they are forced to pay the owners and this is the main reason the CBA may be terminated early.

 

The reason I am bringing this up is to 1. To prepare everyone for another lockout and 2. To talk about a second amnesty buyout that is sure to be on the negotiating table. This was brought up in the article and it sounds like something that will probably fly for the second time.

 

The reason I am bringing this up is because just about every NHL team has at least one contract that they would love to get off the books, but they can’t because they  don’t want to carry a negative cap hit for ex amount of seasons. 

 

The Rangers have one of those in Marc Staal. He is carrying a five + million dollar contract for the next four years and if he were to be bought out, the cap hit would extend for eight years and would be money that they are charged with but can’t use. Not Good!

 

I will say this; if I were a GM in this league, I would propose at the next GM’s meeting that the No move, No trade contracts be off the table. This helps all thirty-one NHL clubs. The players have this as leverage but if all the GM’s said “NO” to this then the teams would be able to operate without a gun to their collective heads. The notion that a player is not capable of playing for a team or is not in their plans but has to remain because of that stupid agreement is crazy. These guys are not hurting for money but yet they continue to milk every penny they can get without any regard for other players on the team.  Normally I side with the players, but in this case I have to go with management on this one. They cry because they are being underpaid, but this is the sport they chose in a league that only has a net worth of four billion dollars and is fourth or fifth in popularity.

 

Oh Well…

[hf101]

Thanks for the discussion topic.  Can you provide a link to the article you read that you are referring to?

 

I expect in a few months we will see some interesting things especially if some players find ways to participate in the Olympics this winter.  This could get ugly.

 

I've also read ( can look to find the article) - that the NHLPA is losing much-needed backing from the Stars of today's game as they are often the least likely to push for the Unions concerns. So it will be interesting to see what happens this year as will the Olympics provide an opportunity to strengthen this Union.

 

I fully expect another lockout.  Some of the players have prepared with their recent contracts being paid out on mainly signing bonuses. I doubt the players will accept giving away their no move, no trade clauses because the next thing the owners push for will be getting rid of the guaranteed contracts.   Without guaranteed contracts, the players union loses big time as the NHL might as well proceed without any push back what so ever.

 

Another real concerning thing for the NHL that is likely to gain more attention this season is the need to find a way to limit concussions in hockey.  The recent studies w /r to CTE in football might be an issue for the sport as a whole moving forward. 

 

 

[radoran]

If GMs don't want to live with the potential problems of NTC/NMC players, they don't have to offer the clause or sign the player.

 

Again a situation where ownership creates the problem and then expects the players to solve it for them.

[murraycraven]

30 minutes ago, radoran said:

If GMs don't want to live with the potential problems of NTC/NMC players, they don't have to offer the clause or sign the player.

 

Again a situation where ownership creates the problem and then expects the players to solve it for them.

 

 

Amen...   

 

NHL and it's ownership can't get out of it's own way.   If you are a betting man I think it is a pretty safe wager there will be another lockout.   

[pilldoc]

1 hour ago, murraycraven said:

If you are a betting man I think it is a pretty safe wager there will be another lockout.   

 

Which will kill this sport ..... How forgiving are hockey fans??

[radoran]

42 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

 

Which will kill this sport ..... How forgiving are hockey fans??

Forgiving enough that it's survived two previous "kill the sport" lockouts in the past 15 years and is now more valuable and profitable than ever.

 

For that matter, the owners have been accused of trying to "kill the sport" since the first expansion.

[aziz]

6 hours ago, radoran said:

Again a situation where ownership creates the problem and then expects the players to solve it for them.

 

or, when you have an organization that consists of 31 separate franchises competing for talent and success but not directly for dollars, drift towards short term decision-making is inevitable, and requires centralized control to rein in.  Centralized control from a party that is not specifically interested in the talent level or success of a given franchise, but the health and vitality of the organization as a whole.

 

I have been and will be offended at the suggestion or reality of salary roll-backs, but outside of that, I would have zero problem with the league saying, "NTC's will only be allowed to cover up to 2 years of any contract, NMC's are completely forbidden, salaries will be limited to 10% of the per-team cap ceiling, and a maximum 6 year duration.  all existing contracts are grandfathered, but all new deals will follow these rules."

 

salary roll backs are the only angle i can see players being expected to solve problems for ownership.  and i am against those roll backs.  beyond that, go nuts, NHL.  it doesn't help anyone that a third of the league will be hamstrung for the next 5 years because of bad deals.  yes, it's their own GMs' faults, but it still reduces the quality of the NHL product overall, and thus I'm good with the NHL looking to solve it unilaterally.  chicago basically had to put itself in perpetual cap hell to produce their cup champions, but now have no real choice but slowly rot away for the next half decade.  detroit tried to keep its salary levels under control, which was admirable, but they did it with movement-restricted (but largely cheaper than normal) deals, and are now going to rot for the attempt.  is that good?  i get that they reap what they sow, and this is the bed they made, and all sorts of other cliches, but....is it good for the league to have teams basically check out of competition for years at a time due to contract-related logjams?  wouldn't it be great if there was some kind of structure that would keep experiments like that from happening and dragging down the NHL's overall product?

 

one thing i'd like to see, and i think it'd go a long way towards fixing a good bit of this...maybe to the point of being the only change that needs to be made:  remove the cap hit for all buy-outs.  any buy-out at all simply goes away, in terms of the team's cap number.  unlimited caphit-free normal-course buy-outs available each summer.  who benefits from tightly controlled buyouts with significant cap consequences?  who'd be hurt?

 

lastly, i've said it before, but with this talk starting up again, i'll repeat: i think professional sports players' unions are one of the least funny jokes of the last 100 years.  it's a perversion, an idea for the good of the common worker that had no leverage and required protection being applied to some of the richest people on the continent.  the minimum wage of an NHL player is $650,000.  when the average doctor and lawyer look like paupers next to the least talented NHL player, my heart is a LONG way from breaking for them, no matter what concession is asked.

[radoran]

1 hour ago, aziz said:

 

or, when you have an organization that consists of 31 separate franchises competing for talent and success but not directly for dollars, drift towards short term decision-making is inevitable, and requires centralized control to rein in.  Centralized control from a party that is not specifically interested in the talent level or success of a given franchise, but the health and vitality of the organization as a whole.

 

I have been and will be offended at the suggestion or reality of salary roll-backs, but outside of that, I would have zero problem with the league saying, "NTC's will only be allowed to cover up to 2 years of any contract, NMC's are completely forbidden, salaries will be limited to 10% of the per-team cap ceiling, and a maximum 6 year duration.  all existing contracts are grandfathered, but all new deals will follow these rules."

 

salary roll backs are the only angle i can see players being expected to solve problems for ownership.  and i am against those roll backs.  beyond that, go nuts, NHL.  it doesn't help anyone that a third of the league will be hamstrung for the next 5 years because of bad deals.  yes, it's their own GMs' faults, but it still reduces the quality of the NHL product overall, and thus I'm good with the NHL looking to solve it unilaterally.  chicago basically had to put itself in perpetual cap hell to produce their cup champions, but now have no real choice but slowly rot away for the next half decade.  detroit tried to keep its salary levels under control, which was admirable, but they did it with movement-restricted (but largely cheaper than normal) deals, and are now going to rot for the attempt.  is that good?  i get that they reap what they sow, and this is the bed they made, and all sorts of other cliches, but....is it good for the league to have teams basically check out of competition for years at a time due to contract-related logjams?  wouldn't it be great if there was some kind of structure that would keep experiments like that from happening and dragging down the NHL's overall product?

 

one thing i'd like to see, and i think it'd go a long way towards fixing a good bit of this...maybe to the point of being the only change that needs to be made:  remove the cap hit for all buy-outs.  any buy-out at all simply goes away, in terms of the team's cap number.  unlimited caphit-free normal-course buy-outs available each summer.  who benefits from tightly controlled buyouts with significant cap consequences?  who'd be hurt?

 

lastly, i've said it before, but with this talk starting up again, i'll repeat: i think professional sports players' unions are one of the least funny jokes of the last 100 years.  it's a perversion, an idea for the good of the common worker that had no leverage and required protection being applied to some of the richest people on the continent.  the minimum wage of an NHL player is $650,000.  when the average doctor and lawyer look like paupers next to the least talented NHL player, my heart is a LONG way from breaking for them, no matter what concession is asked.

 

 In the end, I really don't care what they do. But I do question what, exactly, the "problem" that the solution of limiting NMC/NTCs is supposed to cure?

 

I'm not shedding any tears for the players. But, in the end, the owners are the ones who have set the market for players and allowed for the expansion of contracts, the attempts to circumvent the cap and the proliferation of NMC/NTC deals. Quite frankly a great deal of it can be placed at the feet of the Philadelphia Flyers organization. They're not alone, but they're a big reason.

 

It's been demonstrated that the NMC really means little in the end beyond involving the player with the choice of destination. Many players with NMCs have been traded and there aren't a whole lot of indications that any team dealing one got significantly "fleeced."

 

Well, OK, there was Hartnell for Umburglar...

 

In the end, I see why a player would want to have some stronger indication than a "laurel and hearty handshake" when both sides are making an eight year commitment. And if some damn fool wants to offer some ridiculous clauses in a deal to secure the services of a player, why shouldn't a team be able to make that offer and why shouldn't a player be able to accept it?

[Puck_Pun]

Honestly if there's another lockout I will genuinely look for other leagues to follow. The AIHL (as I have just learned) have made their games very accessible for me to follow the league as a whole, and if there's a Canadian or European league that can give me ready access to view their games well, that's certainly more than enough hockey to keep me sated. I don't have history or geography causing me to be loyal to the NHL, I just follow it because despite its issues it is a highly skilled league as a whole. But if they are incompetent enough to let this happen yet again, I can easily wash my hands of them.

[aziz]

16 hours ago, radoran said:

It's been demonstrated that the NMC really means little in the end beyond involving the player with the choice of destination. Many players with NMCs have been traded and there aren't a whole lot of indications that any team dealing one got significantly "fleeced."

 

has that been demonstrated?  yes, some movement-restricted players get traded, but a lot don't.  i don't know how you define "means little", as there are definitely a number of teams that have had serious roster issues for years due to contracts that are demonstrably harder to move than unrestricted ones.  mix bad term with bad salary with movements restrictions, and you have a fair percentage of the league backed into corners. fleecing isn't so much my concern as just being stuck.

 

16 hours ago, radoran said:

And if some damn fool wants to offer some ridiculous clauses in a deal to secure the services of a player, why shouldn't a team be able to make that offer and why shouldn't a player be able to accept it?

 

because with 31 GMs looking for advantages, there is always going to that guy that offers a bit more or an extra something.  there will always be that guy willing to make a call that is bad in the long term but might help in the short.  and hey, chicago won cups making deals that are definitely going to hurt them eventually, starting real soon.  they have $49.24mil in movement restricted contracts through 2020. 

 

each time a GM decides to gamble and do something extra to retain/attract talent, the bar rises a little.  for the next GM to retain/attract similar talent, a new threshold has been established.  and thus we have constant and startling inflation in player salaries, bonuses, and protection clauses.  it's human nature:  these things will always trend up until they no longer can.  which is why i'm good with the league unilaterally setting restrictions on these things.  no one else can.   no one else will.

 

look, i don't care that detroit is going to have to wait several years before they can really even start rebuilding.  i don't care that chicago is now starting a predictable slide that won't bottom out for another 4 or 5 years.  in terms of the teams and their fan bases, screw them.  but it's bad for the league as a whole.  the game as a whole.  the NHL has a vested interest in the consistency and engagement of the entire league, and i feel like it has the right to set standards and parameters to further that end.  no?

 

do you really not think it would be better to have a league with a more dynamic player base, where teams will be forced to retain roster agility enough to not back themselves into multi-year can't-compete boxes?  like, do you think it would be an actively bad thing?

 

 

[mojo1917]

Gary Bettman came from the NBA, it's my opinion his current league would be helped by adopting some of the salary cap principles from his old one.

 

I know there are some inherent differences in the sports, roster structure and outside revenue, namely TV dollars. 

So the true mechanics of transferring the ideas from one league to the other may differ the spirit can be adhered to pretty easily.

 

First of all the NBA is a soft cap, teams that violate it pay a luxury tax that is moderately punitive in nature,  teams don't want to consistently violate the cap because it's wasting money, but the current tax makes it possible to bring together a core group for a championship run.  

 

The NBA has player exceptions at all levels of performance. 

There are entry deals, mid-level deals, homegrown super star exceptions. I think allowing for either the soft cap of the player exceptions will make for better teams and a better overall product.

 I think when Chicago was not able to retain Branden Saad a couple of years ago, was when this idea came to my mind.

Saad was a homegrown player, wanted to stay with a good team, but also...wanted to get paid, I thought it was a structural problem with the league and cba that he could not get the raise he had earned while continuing to play for the team that developed him and the team he enjoyed playing for.

 

I would be bummed if there were to be another lock-out.  I would like to think the owners would be able to come to some sort of consensus that not playing hockey is bad for business, given how rich people think though, I don't have much hope.

 

[aziz]

12 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I would like to think the owners would be able to come to some sort of consensus that not playing hockey is bad for business, given how rich people think though, I don't have much hope.

 

the owners and the players' union.  collective bargaining, nothing happens without both sides acting, or pointedly failing to act.

[mojo1917]

3 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

the owners and the players' union.  collective bargaining, nothing happens without both sides acting, or pointedly failing to act.

thanks, my brain thought it, i'm such a terrible typist I left out the players association. 

[B21]

23 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

Gary Bettman came from the NBA, it's my opinion his current league would be helped by adopting some of the salary cap principles from his old one.

 

I know there are some inherent differences in the sports, roster structure and outside revenue, namely TV dollars. 

So the true mechanics of transferring the ideas from one league to the other may differ the spirit can be adhered to pretty easily.

 

First of all the NBA is a soft cap, teams that violate it pay a luxury tax that is moderately punitive in nature,  teams don't want to consistently violate the cap because it's wasting money, but the current tax makes it possible to bring together a core group for a championship run.  

 

The NBA has player exceptions at all levels of performance. 

There are entry deals, mid-level deals, homegrown super star exceptions. I think allowing for either the soft cap of the player exceptions will make for better teams and a better overall product.

 I think when Chicago was not able to retain Branden Saad a couple of years ago, was when this idea came to my mind.

Saad was a homegrown player, wanted to stay with a good team, but also...wanted to get paid, I thought it was a structural problem with the league and cba that he could not get the raise he had earned while continuing to play for the team that developed him and the team he enjoyed playing for.

 

I would be bummed if there were to be another lock-out.  I would like to think the owners would be able to come to some sort of consensus that not playing hockey is bad for business, given how rich people think though, I don't have much hope.

 

 

It's a good idea in thought but anything less than a hard cap (and for that matter buyouts that do not count against the cap) puts more distance between the haves and haves nots. An organization like the Flyers with a bottomless pit of money wouldn't think twice about a buyout of an albatross contract for an underperforming player if it didn't count against the cap.  There are teams now that can't come close to the cap while there are teams that would love to spend in excess of it. Increasing the financial flexibility of the latter would hurt parity. Not help it. There should be consequences for "bad" contracts i/m/h/o.  I'd argue that Chicago couldn't retain Saad because they overpaid Kane and (especially) Toews. That's on the players as much as it is the front office of the Blackhawks. Did Kane HAVE to get $1,000,000 per year (AAV) more than Malkin who had the highest AAV at the time ($9,500,000). Did they have to give Toews the same as Kane "just because"? A player who topped 70 points once? Take $1,000,000 away from Kane and at least $2,000,000 from Toews. Could that $3,000,000 have gone towards keeping Saad? I think it's possible.

[radoran]

2 hours ago, aziz said:

do you really not think it would be better to have a league with a more dynamic player base, where teams will be forced to retain roster agility enough to not back themselves into multi-year can't-compete boxes?  like, do you think it would be an actively bad thing?

 

From the perspective of a player who could see his career end on the ice every time he goes over the boards I can see where players wouldn't so much enjoy that. And that the vast majority of them have to do it for three years before "cashing in" (not that the entry level SPC should leave them penniless).

 

From the perspective of the GM, why are they needlessly backing themselves into multi-year, can't-compete boxes?

 

To that end, who is needlessly handicapped by multi-year, can't-compete contracts? The Penguins finally answered the question of when a team with two high paid multi-year contracts would win a Cup. I'm now curious who the first $10M Cup winner in the salary cap era. Or if it will be before the next inevitable salary rollback.

 

Oh, all right, so the Flyers might be a little handicapped... I kid, I kid...

 

Honestly, I don't very much like the entire salary structure of the league at this point. I really don't particularly care how they go about it. But if we go back, the league's superstars at the dawn of the 21st Century were squabbling around to make around $10M+ per season and that was the structure that was deemed far too crazy to be able to be afforded. To that end, the league has enjoyed, effectively, 17 years of relative salary stability.

 

Quite frankly, to your quoted point, I think the Blackhawks c/would have been better served in the long run of their contracts dealing Kane and Toews. I find the number that Kopitar got simply laughable. Pittsburgh managed it in some part because they have Kessel at a discount. I'd like to see a team win a couple of Cups with a young core and then use big pieces to secure the future of another young core. But until that actually happens, the Great Hockey Minds will continue to joust at the same windmills.

 

Because as you note with 31 GMs there will always be some damn fool willing to offer a damn fool contract.

 

No matter what the rules say.

[aziz]

22 minutes ago, B21 said:

There are teams now that can't come close to the cap while there are teams that would love to spend in excess of it. Increasing the financial flexibility of the latter would hurt parity. Not help it. There should be consequences for "bad" contracts i/m/h/o.

 

the fear being that a deep-pockets team could offer a sum of money the smaller team just couldn't, fully planning on buying it out down the road to no consequence?  that's fair, i get that.  i'm also not opposed to teams with more vibrant fan bases being able to realize some sort of earned advantage.  my thinking is that a hard cap coupled to no-impact buyouts would do a fair job of allowing an advantage without letting it get out of control.  while team A might be able to offer a player eleventy-billion dollars per year, and plan on buying it out a few years down the road, they'd still need to fit that eleventy-billion dollars into their cap figures until they do.  i believe the mechanics of negotiating and acquiring players would remain largely as it is today, but we wouldn't have to worry about teams dealing with cap problems years after a questionable deal was signed.  

 

because:  who thinks teams dealing with cap problems helps the sport?  

 

i think the hard cap does as much to control spending on individual contracts as is needed, but teams decaying for years under their poor planning would be minimized.  which, i/m/h/o, can only help NHL hockey as a whole.

[aziz]

29 minutes ago, radoran said:

From the perspective of a player who could see his career end on the ice every time he goes over the boards I can see where players wouldn't so much enjoy that.

 

well, we're talking about movement restrictions and buyout penalties.  I'm not sure how either factors into a player not knowing if he'll be alive after his next shift.  movement restrictions don't make players more secure in their employment, just more secure in their physical house.  buyouts pay 2/3rds if the remaining money on the contract, AND fully release the player from that contract.  Meaning, they can go and get paid again, while also being paid for work no longer needed.  and, really, i don't have an opinion on whether that 2/3rds figure, as far as I'm concerned, make buyouts pay 100% of the remaining contract, just let the team get the person no longer playing for them off of their cap number.

 

29 minutes ago, radoran said:

The Penguins finally answered the question of when a team with two high paid multi-year contracts would win a Cup. I'm now curious who the first $10M Cup winner in the salary cap era.

 

that's chicago, isn't it?  won the cup in 2015 with kane and toews each making $10.5mil (signed july 9, 2014)?

 

29 minutes ago, radoran said:

From the perspective of the GM, why are they needlessly backing themselves into multi-year, can't-compete boxes?

...

Quite frankly, to your quoted point, I think the Blackhawks c/would have been better served in the long run of their contracts dealing Kane and Toews.

 

this is exactly what i'm saying.  yes, the long term better approach would have been to either have dealt the two of them, chosen just one to invest in, or offered them smaller deals without movement restrictions and hoped neither walked away for a better offer (which goes to  the "why are they" question).  so, we have short term thinking resulting in huge salaries that stretch into forever and can't be moved (without the blessings of the players).  

 

--but--

 

that short term thinking won them another cup in 2015.

 

so, that's where we are.  short term thinking can (and does) put teams over the hump or hold cores together.  that's why it is done, both productively (chicago) and unproductively (ho boy, the list...).  the consequences hit the team that took the risk right in the mouth, but we all get to deal with the result:  a league heavy in zombie teams that have no tools other than the passage of time to correct their mistakes, potentially from several years ago, maybe even under different management.  don't see a reason to want that to continue.

29 minutes ago, radoran said:

No matter what the rules say.

 

true.  someone will always find a way to put their neck out on a risky long shot.  you can limit the risk, though.

[mojo1917]

51 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

It's a good idea in thought but anything less than a hard cap (and for that matter buyouts that do not count against the cap) puts more distance between the haves and haves nots. An organization like the Flyers with a bottomless pit of money wouldn't think twice about a buyout of an albatross contract for an underperforming player if it didn't count against the cap.  There are teams now that can't come close to the cap while there are teams that would love to spend in excess of it. Increasing the financial flexibility of the latter would hurt parity. Not help it. There should be consequences for "bad" contracts i/m/h/o.  I'd argue that Chicago couldn't retain Saad because they overpaid Kane and (especially) Toews. That's on the players as much as it is the front office of the Blackhawks. Did Kane HAVE to get $1,000,000 per year (AAV) more than Malkin who had the highest AAV at the time ($9,500,000). Did they have to give Toews the same as Kane "just because"? A player who topped 70 points once? Take $1,000,000 away from Kane and at least $2,000,000 from Toews. Could that $3,000,000 have gone towards keeping Saad? I think it's possible.

it's tough, you make good points here. For me, though I think @aziz says this nicely  because:  who thinks teams dealing with cap problems helps the sport?  

 

Teams with "vibrant fanbases" should be able to use that advantage in some way. 

Maybe the soft cap luxury tax idea isn't the most equitable for keeping the playing field level. 

My issue is that even when teams do build through the draft, make the most of their high draft picks, they aren't able to reap the benefits of that good work for more than 3 or 4 years.  I would like for teams to be able to keep their draftees. Does this mean a cap on the length of deals ?  is there a % limit on cap space per player ?  I don't know, I do know that management of the cap isn't why I watch hockey, I would love to see a 'hawks / pens final one day, the salary cap makes that harder.  More specifically the teams that I would want to see play don't exist anymore, the salary cap has seen to that.  I don't think it's bad for sports leagues to have great teams.  I think if a smaller market team is allowed exceptions to keep their home grown star from leaving that's a good thing, same for a large market team.  A player shouldn't be penalized for trying to receive market value for his talents, nor should the team that helped him develop those talents be priced out of his market.  there's something fundamentally wrong with that in my opinion. 

[radoran]

@aziz

 

They signed extensions that hadn't begun yet.

 

They haven't been out of the first round since.

[ruxpin]

On 8/2/2017 at 10:52 AM, radoran said:

If GMs don't want to live with the potential problems of NTC/NMC players, they don't have to offer the clause or sign the player.

 

Again a situation where ownership creates the problem and then expects the players to solve it for them.

 

Nearly word for word my immediate thought when I read the initial post.   

[B21]

17 hours ago, aziz said:

the fear being that a deep-pockets team could offer a sum of money the smaller team just couldn't, fully planning on buying it out down the road to no consequence?  that's fair, i get that.  i'm also not opposed to teams with more vibrant fan bases being able to realize some sort of earned advantage.

 

That's fair but I think it's a slippery slope as well. Those teams with the most vibrant fan bases tend to be the same teams that spend to the cap (how well they spend is another matter). The "less vibrant" tend not to. Independent of fan bases the larger markets are at an advantage just by the sheer demographics of their location. The New York Rangers will always be able to charge more for tickets, concessions, television and advertising than the Nashville Predators - a fan base I consider New York's equal albeit smaller.  Why should New York be able to dole out $8,000,000 contracts on a whim knowing there is that "get out of jail free" card in the form of a cap-free buyout when Nashville can't do the same? The NHL becomes MLB at that point even with a cap.

 

17 hours ago, aziz said:

because:  who thinks teams dealing with cap problems helps the sport?  

 

i think the hard cap does as much to control spending on individual contracts as is needed, but teams decaying for years under their poor planning would be minimized.  which, i/m/h/o, can only help NHL hockey as a whole.

 

This is the conundrum. To me, the only real "solution" is contraction which would never happen and I wouldn't support anyway. I think you will always have teams that struggle either with managing the cap or spending to the cap in any sport. It happens in the NFL and NBA as well. I mean - someone has to finish last, right?

 

[B21]

17 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

it's tough, you make good points here. For me, though I think @aziz says this nicely  because:  who thinks teams dealing with cap problems helps the sport?  

 

Teams with "vibrant fanbases" should be able to use that advantage in some way. 

Maybe the soft cap luxury tax idea isn't the most equitable for keeping the playing field level. 

My issue is that even when teams do build through the draft, make the most of their high draft picks, they aren't able to reap the benefits of that good work for more than 3 or 4 years.  I would like for teams to be able to keep their draftees. Does this mean a cap on the length of deals ?  is there a % limit on cap space per player ?  I don't know, I do know that management of the cap isn't why I watch hockey, I would love to see a 'hawks / pens final one day, the salary cap makes that harder.  More specifically the teams that I would want to see play don't exist anymore, the salary cap has seen to that.  I don't think it's bad for sports leagues to have great teams.  I think if a smaller market team is allowed exceptions to keep their home grown star from leaving that's a good thing, same for a large market team.  A player shouldn't be penalized for trying to receive market value for his talents, nor should the team that helped him develop those talents be priced out of his market.  there's something fundamentally wrong with that in my opinion. 

 

All fair. Like I said in my response to aziz, I think the teams more vibrant fan bases do have an advantage already - they are more likely to spend to the cap than the "less vibrant" (the Arizona Coyotes for instance). But in many cases, the economics aren't there if for no other reason than the market in which a team resides. Take the Rangers and Predators. Say the both draft equally well, manage the cap well, etc. At some point (and I think it's a point not too far above the current cap) the Rangers will simply be able to afford to do something Nashville cannot whether it be a buyout of a bad deal or signing a star player (one you drafted and developed) to a long term deal. Simply because New York can charge more for tickets, advertising, concessions, etc. I am small-market biased of course but that just doesn't see right to me. 

 

To your point about the Pens and Hawks - I see them as perfect examples of how to be successful in a cap world. They each have had a highly paid core in place for about a decade.  What they have been able to do that teams with other highly paid "cores" have not is when the complimentary pieces had to move they were able to replace them with equally talented but more affordable options. It took the Pens a lot longer to do it than Chicago but the concept was the same. The Pens can afford the Crosbys and Malkins and Letangs and Kessels of the worlds because they drafted/signed the Maattas, Shearys, Rusts, Wilsons, Guentzels and Murrays. Sheary and Maatta were "paid". It's possible that when Rust and Guentzel are due to get paid the Pens will have to bite the bullet and "hope" they have replacements waiting in the wings.  It think that process has already started. Out goes Kunitz and in comes Sprong maybe? Next year, say goodbye to a Hornqvist and say hello to Zach Aston-Reese. Who knows. 

 

That's not to say this is the only forumula that can win a cup. the Bruins won theirs with a roster that seemed as if every player was making at least $2M but none more than $5M (probably not accurate but they didn't have the highly paid core).  

 

Bottom line - draft well. Develop well. Don't overpay "just because". Do that and you have a shot.

[fanaticV3.0]

Least popular major sport and the most amount of lockout/strikes (I think)… This would be ill advised and everyone involved would be smart to work something out.

[RJ8812]

On 02/08/2017 at 10:12 PM, Puck_Pun said:

Honestly if there's another lockout I will genuinely look for other leagues to follow. The AIHL (as I have just learned) have made their games very accessible for me to follow the league as a whole, and if there's a Canadian or European league that can give me ready access to view their games well, that's certainly more than enough hockey to keep me sated. I don't have history or geography causing me to be loyal to the NHL, I just follow it because despite its issues it is a highly skilled league as a whole. But if they are incompetent enough to let this happen yet again, I can easily wash my hands of them.

 

Yeah, but you'll just come back to the NHL. 

[Puck_Pun]

If there's another league I can access the games of, no I won't.