DITCH THE SALARY CAP!

[WordsOfWisdom]

6 hours ago, sweetshot said:

 Total payroll of 68M is the lowest. 228M the highest. About 3.5X.

Teams ranking 1st, 3rd, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th and 22nd in total payroll for the 2018 season made the playoffs. 

The Brewers at 22nd are still in it. As are #1 Boston, #3 Dodgers and #9 Houston.

 

What's the NHL operating at right now? A cap of ~$80M and a floor of ~$60M?  

 

The problem with the NHL is that the floor is practically at the ceiling. There's no wiggle room whatsoever.

 

If the NHL had a salary floor of say $50M and a ceiling of $120M, I think that would be acceptable. 

 

There needs to be provisions put in place that allow wealthy teams to spend money on their own roster otherwise make all fans pay Leafs ticket prices and we'll call it even. If you're paying what fans in Toronto pay to see a game, then I won't complain. 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

Someone should start a retro rival hockey league to compete with the NHL.

 

Sign the best players in the world and pay them top dollar. Players would be able to leave the NHL and (instead of going to the KHL) could play here in North America in a league with ~6 teams (Toronto, Montreal, Boston, etc....) where the teams have no salary cap and can spend whatever they want on player personnel. 

 

Should be easy enough to lure NHL players away from the NHL by offering them contracts that NHL teams can't match. 

 

It could be a "retro hockey league" in the sense that the game would feature old time rules and an old time feel. There would be hitting, no shootout, no 3-on-3 OT, fewer ads, fewer games, smaller arenas (potentially), a free market system, etc....  

[J0e Th0rnton]

6 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

What's the NHL operating at right now? A cap of ~$80M and a floor of ~$60M?  

 

The problem with the NHL is that the floor is practically at the ceiling. There's no wiggle room whatsoever.

 

If the NHL had a salary floor of say $50M and a ceiling of $120M, I think that would be acceptable. 

 

There needs to be provisions put in place that allow wealthy teams to spend money on their own roster otherwise make all fans pay Leafs ticket prices and we'll call it even. If you're paying what fans in Toronto pay to see a game, then I won't complain. 

 

 

So? Leafs can offer front loaded contracts that budget teams cannot. Budget teams in fact during rebuilds buy high AVV contracts which already paid money during the front loaded/Bonus stage just to hit the cap floor.

 

I find it comical that you want the cap gone so you won't "Lose players" you can't make room on the cap to keep due to giving out other contracts that hurt your cap situation.

 

Basically for you to have what you want, you will be forcing the other teams in the market to "lose players" because they cannot afford to pay the same salary. But you only care how it affects the leafs, not the other 30 teams

 

Nope. Salary cap stays

 

 

[BluPuk]

On 10/18/2018 at 12:09 PM, JR Ewing said:

If you ever want to create fan apathy outside of the big media markets, re-introduce a system which turns the small markets into little more than farm teams for the apex predators at the top of the food chain.

 

But this is true now, JR. -You mean like Phoenix, Dallas, Colorado, just to name a few? They are already there. The cap can not build or help a poor franchise. The cap can only make payments to teams that cannot make it on their own - these are teams which should not exist at all. Their market cannot sustain a team and make money. The cap is only there to shore up the financial statements of the poor teams. The Rangers have a GREAT audience and fan base as well as billions of dollars, but they cannot build a championship team because the cap prevents them from doing so. OK I hereby drop out of this thread.

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 10/19/2018 at 6:51 AM, J0e Th0rnton said:

Basically for you to have what you want, you will be forcing the other teams in the market to "lose players" because they cannot afford to pay the same salary.

 

That's how it's supposed to work. Some markets are richer than others because the fan interest is greater in some locations than in others. It has little to do with the size of the city and everything to do with the size of the fan base in that city. Otherwise why not make ticket prices the same for all 31 teams? Why aren't ticket prices "shared" evenly across all of the fans of the NHL? 

 

There are three NHL teams in the New York area and one team in Toronto. The fan interest for the Leafs is greater than both New York teams and New Jersey combined. The Toronto Maple Leafs are like the New York Yankees AND Boston Red Sox of the NHL put together. 

 

There needs to be something put in place that allows Toronto (and others) to spend more money on their roster. Some teams might do it short term to win a few Cups and keep the group together until they age out or fade out, other teams might consistently spend more money because the fan base demands it. 

 

We're only talking a difference of 3-4 players here at the most on a roster of 20. 

 

On 10/19/2018 at 6:51 AM, J0e Th0rnton said:

Nope. Salary cap stays

 

 

[J0e Th0rnton]

14 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

That's how it's supposed to work. Some markets are richer than others because the fan interest is greater in some locations than in others. It has little to do with the size of the city and everything to do with the size of the fan base in that city. Otherwise why not make ticket prices the same for all 31 teams? Why aren't ticket prices "shared" evenly across all of the fans of the NHL? 

 

There are three NHL teams in the New York area and one team in Toronto. The fan interest for the Leafs is greater than both New York teams and New Jersey combined. The Toronto Maple Leafs are like the New York Yankees AND Boston Red Sox of the NHL put together. 

 

There needs to be something put in place that allows Toronto (and others) to spend more money on their roster. Some teams might do it short term to win a few Cups and keep the group together until they age out or fade out, other teams might consistently spend more money because the fan base demands it. 

 

We're only talking a difference of 3-4 players here at the most on a roster of 20. 

 

 

 

Nope. The cap stays. The owners want it, Cable networks want it and the NHL wants it. Oh and by the way, fans of 29 of 31 other teams want it to stay too. They just did this poll on HFboards lol.

 

Not surprisingly, it was all leaf and ranger fans who wanted the cap gone.

 

The leafs are an original 6 team. you want an artificial advantage over teams with less history and less fanbase that will not be tolerated in today's NHL.

 

The powers that be have spoken on the matter basically.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Do you think there is any way to circumvent the cap? Can teams pay players in shares, futures, real estate, or some other form of equity? Can they have a group-based negotiation so that all the players are in the same room together and work out a deal collectively?

 

I don't think fans are going to put up with a system that sees star players leaving town for no reason other than a lack of cap space, at least not for much longer. I think opinions will change on this. Fans, hockey analysts, and media are going to sour on the current salary cap system before much longer simply because it wrecks good teams (punishing success) and rewards mediocrity.

 

The current system forces teams to overpay for players who have no business being in the NHL (and role players who are easily replaceable) by forcing them to give fat contracts to get up to the ridiculously high salary floor while it also forces them to underpay star players who deserve more money than what they're getting because they may carry 35% of their team's scoring production on their own but have to take less due to the cap. 

 

If this were baseball, you would have some guys earning $20 million per season and other guys getting $1 mil. If baseball had a cap, it would bring the $20 mil guys down to $12 mil and bring the $1 mil guys up to $3 mil. Baseball seems to be doing just fine revenue wise with Red Sox vs Dodgers in the World Series. The NHL should be doing the same.

 

The NHL's peak popularity was around 1994, back when you had big spending teams like Toronto, Montreal, LA, New York, Detroit, Chicago, etc... all on top and all making serious pushes for championships. 

 

I don't think the NHL will ever recapture what it had back then. 

 

 

My two cents. 

 

[radoran]

As per usual, it would help if you had facts - any facts - to back up your assertions.

 

13 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I don't think fans are going to put up with a system that sees star players leaving town for no reason other than a lack of cap space, at least not for much longer.

 

Do you have any good examples of this happening? Tavares leaving the Island could be one, but that wasn't for "cap reasons."

 

Here's the list of 2018 UFA signings (from the NHL) - find one "star player" who was "forced" to leave a team he wanted to stay with (and the team wanted) "for cap reasons." Just one.

 

No? Well, here's 2017 - have at it.

 

4 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I think opinions will change on this. Fans, hockey analysts, and media are going to sour on the current salary cap system before much longer simply because it wrecks good teams (punishing success) and rewards mediocrity.

 

I don't think there is any metric out there which would in any way indicate that the Leafs are being "punished" for "success."

 

The concept is simply mid-bogling.

 

5 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The current system forces teams to overpay for players who have no business being in the NHL (and role players who are easily replaceable) by forcing them to give fat contracts to get up to the ridiculously high salary floor while it also forces them to underpay star players who deserve more money than what they're getting because they may carry 35% of their team's scoring production on their own but have to take less due to the cap. 

 

Do you have any good examples of this happening? What "no business in the NHL" player has been "overpaid"?

 

You realize the "high salary floor" is there specifically to stop teams from just coasting along raking in profit sharing money without making an effort to win, right?

 

7 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Baseball seems to be doing just fine revenue wise with Red Sox vs Dodgers in the World Series. The NHL should be doing the same.

 

The league has - literally - never been more valuable, more profitable, or more popular. By any metric you wish to use to measure.

 

10 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The NHL's peak popularity was around 1994, back when you had big spending teams like Toronto, Montreal, LA, New York, Detroit, Chicago, etc... all on top and all making serious pushes for championships. 

 

BTW, Chicago was 6th in the Conference in 1994 and lost in the first round to... wait for it... Tronno. They did go to the Final the next year and then had two rounds of playoffs over the next eight years. Before the salary cap was implemented.

 

Montreal didn't make it out of the first round the year after their Cup win. They would have nine rounds of playoffs over the next ten years (missing the playoffs entirely five times) again before the salary cap was implemented.

 

The Kings missed the playoffs and would for the next three years. They wouldn't make it out of the first round until 2001 and had five rounds of playoffs - total - between 1993 and 2003. Before the salary cap was implemented. After the cap, they would miss the playoffs for the next four years.

 

The free-spending Rangers won the 1994 Cup and had seven rounds of playoffs over the next three seasons, losing the Conference Finals to the Flyers in 1997. They would then miss the playoffs for seven years (again before the salary cap was implemented).

 

And, as you probably already know, the Leafs made back-to-back Conference Finals in 1993 and 1994 then lost in the first round the next two seasons and missed outright in 1997 and 1998. How could this happen when there was no salary cap "punishing" them for their "success"??

 

Well, bad management. Which is exactly what teams suffer from today.

 

Your "solution" is badly in need of a "problem" to fix.

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, radoran said:

You realize the "high salary floor" is there specifically to stop teams from just coasting along raking in profit sharing money without making an effort to win, right?

 

I'm pretty sure the salary floor was put in at the request of the players to ensure that they were still going to make out great under the new CBA because they would be well paid no matter which team they played for. 

 

ie: "Sure we'll accept a salary cap of $80 mil ...... if the floor is also $80 mil....."   that type of thing.

 

Without a salary floor, player salaries would be greatly reduced. 

 

3 hours ago, radoran said:

The league has - literally - never been more valuable, more profitable, or more popular. By any metric you wish to use to measure.

 

Value increases over time by default. That's just inflation. Every pro sports league is more valuable today.  I'm talking about the NHL's position relative to the other major sports leagues and on that front, I don't see any movement. The NHL is still far behind the NFL, MLB, and the NBA.  At one point in time (1994), the NHL was ahead of the NBA.

 

3 hours ago, radoran said:

And, as you probably already know, the Leafs made back-to-back Conference Finals in 1993 and 1994 then lost in the first round the next two seasons and missed outright in 1997 and 1998. How could this happen when there was no salary cap "punishing" them for their "success"??

 

Well, bad management. Which is exactly what teams suffer from today.

 

So by extension, can we agree that removing the salary cap won't give teams like the Leafs any advantage?    

 

3 hours ago, radoran said:

Your "solution" is badly in need of a "problem" to fix.

 

I'm just grasping at straws to gain support for my position.   

[brelic]

Some interesting banter back and forth. 

 

Here are two ways that, IMO, would make the NHL ice a better product. 

 

1. Contraction. 

 

It won't happen, but if the NHL culled about 6-8 teams, man, you'd have an amazing product on the ice. I could see getting rid of 2-3 Canadian teams and 3-4 US teams.

 

Or, have an A pool and a B pool. Winner of Pool A gets the Stanley Cup, winner of Pool B gets bumped to Pool A. Again, you'd have much better hockey all around.

 

2. Cap exemption for drafted stars.

 

Rather than eliminate the salary cap - which would be the death knell for small market teams - or add a luxury tax - which would just allow rich teams to stock up on talent, why not give each team 1 or 2 exemptions for players that they have drafted and developed?

 

So, McDavid, for example, might only count for 25% or 50% or 75% of his cap hit while he remains in Edmonton. Same with Matthews in Toronto. But Tavares would be full cap hit because Toronto didn't draft him.

 

This gives each team the ability to retain the stars they have drafted and developed - and paying them what they're worth - while leaving room for incoming players. 

 

Just a few random thoughts on Friday afternoon.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 11/1/2018 at 3:30 PM, brelic said:

Some interesting banter back and forth. 

 

I've been bogged down with exams lately but I definitely try. 

 

On 11/1/2018 at 3:30 PM, brelic said:

1. Contraction. 

 

I think contraction is exactly what the NHL needs, but from the standpoint of optics, I understand why they would never do it. The NHL is going to pretend it's just like the NFL and MLB no matter what the reality is. I believe they're adding teams simply to try and gain visibility. 

 

On 11/1/2018 at 3:30 PM, brelic said:

Or, have an A pool and a B pool. Winner of Pool A gets the Stanley Cup, winner of Pool B gets bumped to Pool A. Again, you'd have much better hockey all around.

 

Sounds intriguing, but do fans of B pool teams get a discount for watching crappy hockey?

 

On 11/1/2018 at 3:30 PM, brelic said:

2. Cap exemption for drafted stars.

 

This sounds intriguing!  How about a full and permanent salary cap exemption for all players drafted by the team?  In other words, players you draft won't ever count towards your team salary cap. 

 

[brelic]

2 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Sounds intriguing, but do fans of B pool teams get a discount for watching crappy hockey?

 

That's just it - you wouldn't be watching crappy hockey. Pool B teams would be more evenly matched, so the competitiveness should increase.

 

3 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

This sounds intriguing!  How about a full and permanent salary cap exemption for all players drafted by the team?  In other words, players you draft won't ever count towards your team salary cap. 

 

Haha, no. Always gotta take it one step too far, eh? Lol.

 

Start with 1-2, and see how that goes. Incrementalism, my friend. That's how established industries change. 

 

Now, if you want disruption, you'll have to do that on your own to shake up the status quo. Start your own league. All you need is a few billion dollars.

[WordsOfWisdom]

5 minutes ago, brelic said:

That's just it - you wouldn't be watching crappy hockey. Pool B teams would be more evenly matched, so the competitiveness should increase.

 

I've always been a fan of doing something similar to what golf does: 

 

You begin the season, play about 2/3 of it. Then you make a cut. The top 20 teams play on. The remaining teams are done for the season. The final 20 teams play the last month or so of the season battling for playoff spots. When the playoffs come, that's basically the second and final cut.

 

Thoughts? 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

The 10 teams which fail to make the first cut would be entered into the draft lottery, so all of those details could be worked out while the remaining teams finish their season.

 

It also means that hockey during the final stretch of the season would be only good teams playing against good teams battling for playoff spots. No soft matches and no problems with teams tanking. 

 

Then you could also reduce the number of teams which are allowed into the playoffs from 16 down to 10 like MLB has. (You can't have 16 of 20 teams making it after all.)