VOTE for the CBA you would like next season ?

This is a poll to make people aware of the CBA possibilities ?

What would you choose between

A :
CAP : 40,000,000$
UFA : 27 years old

B :
Same CBA as last year + 5% players paycut + Rookie Cap bonuses ?

C :
Luxury Tax : 45,000,000$ (1$ for 1$ after)
UFA : 29 years old
Rookie Cap bonuses

This poll is to get people think about what they can logically get in the next week or months. I don't put unilateral & utopian agreement like a CAP of 35M$ , with the same UFA age & stuff.

so VOTE & explain why you prefer the one you vote instead of the others.

to me it's B)

The UFA age is the most powerful tool for the small market teams & it's the deciding factor if you ask between staying in the NHL & not being able to be in the NHL.

The HARD CAP is not useful at all if we lose 4 years of UFA eligibility.

The SOFT CAP is not good enough if we lose 2 years of UFA eligibility.

That's my 2 cents.

I think the owners have shown that they can act responsibly with UFA's over the last couple of years. Lowering the age of UFA will also enable owners not to be pressured into qualifying a player they might think is paid too high for their liking. That's where salaries are still on the rise IMO ... qualification & arbitration. I think ultimately, more players will be fighting for the same available jobs ... it'll then become a question of which one will do it at the owners price or room within the cap.....

I think the owners have shown that they can act responsibly with UFA's over the last couple of years. Lowering the age of UFA will also enable owners not to be pressured into qualifying a player they might think is paid too high for their liking. That's where salaries are still on the rise IMO ... qualification & arbitration. I think ultimately, more players will be fighting for the same available jobs ... it'll then become a question of which one will do it at the owners price or room within the cap.....

I strongly disagree with this, lowering the UFA age will penalize every teams that draft well & most of all developing well. I just don't see how Marian Hossa will have less than the free market will claim for him even if there's more UFA. I don't think OTTAWA should lose a player in his prime @ 27-28-29 years old when they took the time & energy to develop him into an ELITE player.

P.S. I'm not a Sens fan, same thing apply for any other kid turning 27-28-29 & being UFA because of a cap.

I'm against lowering the UFA age.

I like the NHLPA's October 03 proposition.

Wouldn't mind changing the rules of arbitration though.

B for me.I hate salary cap.It won't resolve the problems.I don't see any problems to lose some years for Ufa eligibility.The B is the best option here.The players don't want a cap and the luxury tax won't work IMO.

Anyways Russian Fan do you think there will be a lockout ?

Me yes but not a whole year.It will do too much damage financially.I am sure the training camps wil start in Junuary.

B for me.I hate salary cap.It won't resolve the problems.I don't see any problems to lose some years for Ufa eligibility.The B is the best option here.The players don't want a cap and the luxury tax won't work IMO.

Anyways Russian Fan do you think there will be a lockout ?

Me yes but not a whole year.It will do too much damage financially.I am sure the training camps wil start in Junuary.

I think there will be a lockout ? How long ? I don't believe AT ALL of a 1 year lockout +.

If there's a lockout I believe there will be a settlement in the 1st 3-weeks (sept 16 to oct 6) or in december-january.

It really depends on the owners. If they will give full autority to Bettman & Daly or if they gonna put their nose inside the negotiations.

In a perfect world Id like to see a:

Cap/tax at $35mil
Cap on rookie conracts/bonuses $1.5mil
UFA age: 32

This is a poll to make people aware of the CBA possibilities ?

What would you choose between

A :
CAP : 40,000,000$
UFA : 27 years old

B :
Same CBA as last year + 5% players paycut + Rookie Cap bonuses ?

C :
Luxury Tax : 45,000,000$ (1$ for 1$ after)
UFA : 29 years old
Rookie Cap bonuses

This poll is to get people think about what they can logically get in the next week or months. I don't put unilateral & utopian agreement like a CAP of 35M$ , with the same UFA age & stuff.

so VOTE & explain why you prefer the one you vote instead of the others.
Luxury Cap 45M$ ($ for $) + UFA @ 29 years old + Rookie Cap bonuses. 16 47.06%

I strongly disagree with this, lowering the UFA age will penalize every teams that draft well & most of all developing well. I just don't see how Marian Hossa will have less than the free market will claim for him even if there's more UFA. I don't think OTTAWA should lose a player in his prime @ 27-28-29 years old when they took the time & energy to develop him into an ELITE player.

P.S. I'm not a Sens fan, same thing apply for any other kid turning 27-28-29 & being UFA because of a cap.

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. sure they get something back, but what good is that?? It's usually a good pick and/or another kid and/or a spare part to fill a roster spot with potential coming back.....

guys like thornton, gomez, tanguay, richards, datsiuk, etc are all in the same sort of age bracket as hossa (i'm guessing) ... not to mention the guys over 30 who're also elegible for UFA currently. Under a cap, If you got the cap room, and Hossa decides to leave, there's other star calibre players out there that can replace him... they have that option! In todays format, they're stuck regrooming. They can't trade for a star if they are trading their own away cuz they can't afford them!!

I see your point of view and most people probably agree with you, I just believe, the lower the age of UFA, the more supply will exceed demand ... for everything from goalies to captains and from plumbers to superstars.....

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. .

u mean like how they (OTT) had to deal Daniel Alfredsson ? oh wait, they didnt, they resigned him.

u mean how they had to deal Yashin ? oh wait, that was a fantastic trade that landed them Spezza and Chara and unloaded Yashin on NYI.

so, what players has OTT had to unload because they cant afford to resign ?

dr

CAP 40M$ + UFA @ 27 years old

u mean like how they (OTT) had to deal Daniel Alfredsson ? oh wait, they didnt, they resigned him.

u mean how they had to deal Yashin ? oh wait, that was a fantastic trade that landed them Spezza and Chara and unloaded Yashin on NYI.

so, what players has OTT had to unload because they cant afford to resign ?

dr

I used Hossa because that's who the other poster used in his arguement. I was speaking on small market teams in general. It is worth noting, that the Sens did give away Bonk, Lalime and bought out Bondra this year. It's also worth remembering that this was a team in bankruptcy only a couple of years ago ... they tried to keep a competitive team together and they almost lost the whole franchise! The only change in revenue stream is they now have an owner with deeper pockets. With no new foreseeable revenue streams, even he'll grow wary of the endless red ink sooner rather then later.......... even after getting rid of the above 3 players, I'm guessing with the raises given to Chara, Alfreddson, and Phillips and Havlat if they've signed, the owners are probably already above where they want to be in payroll for next year...

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. sure they get something back, but what good is that?? It's usually a good pick and/or another kid and/or a spare part to fill a roster spot with potential coming back.....

guys like thornton, gomez, tanguay, richards, datsiuk, etc are all in the same sort of age bracket as hossa (i'm guessing) ... not to mention the guys over 30 who're also elegible for UFA currently. Under a cap, If you got the cap room, and Hossa decides to leave, there's other star calibre players out there that can replace him... they have that option! In todays format, they're stuck regrooming. They can't trade for a star if they are trading their own away cuz they can't afford them!!

I see your point of view and most people probably agree with you, I just believe, the lower the age of UFA, the more supply will exceed demand ... for everything from goalies to captains and from plumbers to superstars.....


But under a cap, teams still won't be able to keep the good players they drafted. A cap will not allow anyone to sustain a good team for very long.

Luxury Cap 45M

The way it is now, they develop him and then they gotta trade him when he hits his mid-late 20's cuz they can't afford to re-sign him. sure they get something back, but what good is that?? It's usually a good pick and/or another kid and/or a spare part to fill a roster spot with potential coming back.....

So trading them in the mid late 20's for something in return is worst than losing him via FREE AGENCY ?

guys like thornton, gomez, tanguay, richards, datsiuk, etc are all in the same sort of age bracket as hossa (i'm guessing) ... not to mention the guys over 30 who're also elegible for UFA currently. Under a cap, If you got the cap room, and Hossa decides to leave, there's other star calibre players out there that can replace him... they have that option! In todays format, they're stuck regrooming. They can't trade for a star if they are trading their own away cuz they can't afford them!!

Again if I follow your reasoning, if a team had to trade his players in the mid 20's because they couldn't afford him, why suddenly they could afford a FREE AGENT in the mid 20's that will cost more than having him in a RFA ? 5 Datsyuk's UFA won't be less affordable than 1 Datsyuk's RFA because there's a lot of team in need of a player to replace him.

I see your point of view and most people probably agree with you, I just believe, the lower the age of UFA, the more supply will exceed demand ... for everything from goalies to captains and from plumbers to superstars.....

More supply will not exceed the demand. If 5 team loss a Datsyuk, that means 5 teams hungry to get a player to this caliber. Also you create what I HATE THE MOST ABOUT THE NFL THESE DAYS. No more players stick with the team, no more loyalty, every year there's a lot of changes & you stop loving the players because you think they will be moved in the next 2-3 years.

I used Hossa because that's who the other poster used in his arguement. I was speaking on small market teams in general. It is worth noting, that the Sens did give away Bonk, Lalime and bought out Bondra this year. It's also worth remembering that this was a team in bankruptcy only a couple of years ago ... they tried to keep a competitive team together and they almost lost the whole franchise! The only change in revenue stream is they now have an owner with deeper pockets. With no new foreseeable revenue streams, even he'll grow wary of the endless red ink sooner rather then later.......... even after getting rid of the above 3 players, I'm guessing with the raises given to Chara, Alfreddson, and Phillips and Havlat if they've signed, the owners are probably already above where they want to be in payroll for next year...

Again they receive a pick for Bonk instead of nothing if Bonk was a UFA. Also what makes you think trading Bonk & Lalime was trade for financial reason ? To me it seems more & more about John Muckler incompetency & like Bobby Clarke did with Cechmanek they put the blame on those 2 guys & by the same time diminish the value of these 2 players. Muckler can't expect to get more of him if they tell everyone how bad they were for the team dont they ?

Also it's funny how the Montreal Canadiens didn't hesitate to pay a little more for Bonk than what the Sens receive from the Kings ? To me it just show again about the GM competency or lack thereof. Also did I need to mention that Bonk negotiate a new contract for Bonk ? That must mean that Bonk had a specific value for some teams & not for the Sens. This is not a problem of the CBA this is a MANAGEMENT PROBLEM.

That's the thing about what people here make the same mistake time after time with their arguments, they don't look the management part & they blame the CBA for everything that goes wrong with 1 team (usually THE team that they're fan).

I'm running around in circles trying to explain my logic ... I'm dropping out. You're right The current CBA is just perfect. Sorry for initially thinking otherwise.......

I'm running around in circles trying to explain my logic ... I'm dropping out. You're right The current CBA is just perfect. Sorry for initially thinking otherwise.......

Everyone here including me , dr or other can tell you that nobody think the CBA is perfect.

But is the CBA that flawed that there is a need for a lock-out ? I don't think so.

There's something that can be fix inside the actual CBA & some things that could be negotiate without having a lockout like stopping to pay a 1st round pick 3-4-5M$ a year with the bonuses.

It's now 2 summers that the GM's are saying to their to employers that the CBA can work on their side if they apply the rules that benefit them. If they manage properly & if they try to take of every little detail like any other business.

- good staff to evaluate a player vs the need for the team
- good staff for scouting
- good staff to developing our prospect
- good staff for the medicals
- good staff for the legal aspect
ect......

The CBA is not perfect but it's very workable & it's not deserving of stealing 1 year of hockey for us the FANS !!!

I voted for "C".
The small market guys would have their cap. The rich teams could do what they want but they pay extra for it (I would divide that money amongst the Canadian franchises to offset the difference between Canadian/US dollar and the small market clubs). The players would get to be free agents at 27, going into their prime earning years. A cap of on rookie salaries is a good idea too. Let these "can't miss" guys earn their first fat contract after proving it in the NHL.
Everybody gives up something, but everyone gets something.

i dont mind the UFA age at 20 actually .. or 2nd contract ...
so A for me ...
I would also add 5 millions to the cap for a 45M$ soft cap with no bonuses for rookie ! :D

"C" is a good compromise IMHO. I could even see the Luxury threshold being higher than that.

I like A the best, but it won't happen.
B is just unsustainable.

I voted C because it will do enough good and should get up. *


* I'd modify C as I think UFA age should stays at 31 or go up to 32 if the cap+luxury is $45m+luxury. $45m won't damage salary that much and the UFA age at 31-32 would help teams stay under the $45m mark and maintain good fan relation through player maintenance.

$40m+luxury tax and the UFA age could come down to 29, and that would also work because it trades off $5m against player-fan relations.


===============================

$40m + $ for $ luxury tax, UFA age 31 and 20% cap discount for long term players (players drafted by that club without being traded away or arrived as rookies in a trade/players who have been there 5 years straight/players who have played the majority of their games there).

This would allow teams built through the draft to be maintained a bit longer.

I'll vote for #3 depending on what happens to the revenue generated from the luxury tax.


Also, one thing i dont see alot if a salary floor. I dont know if we want owners just pocketing revenue from the luxury tax and not re-investing it into their teams.

BTW both the NBA and NFL have a salary floor.

All these choices are completely wrong:

31 Mil hard cap + equal revenue sharing.

anything else, as has been said over and over and over again yet for some reason people just dont seem to get it, continues to make the NHL non-viable as a business and they will continue to bleed money until it goes bankrupt.

Hard cap & revenue sharing... No ifs, ands, or buts about it. :shakehead

All these choices are completely wrong:

31 Mil hard cap + equal revenue sharing.

anything else, as has been said over and over and over again yet for some reason people just dont seem to get it, continues to make the NHL non-viable as a business and they will continue to bleed money until it goes bankrupt.

Hard cap & revenue sharing... No ifs, ands, or buts about it. :shakehead
Just because it's said over and over and over again doesn't make it correct.

Salaries need to come down, that is the problem. A hard cap and revenue sharing is certainly one way to fix that problem (one that has about zero chance of happening BTW) but that doesn't make it the only way.

There are teams that can afford to spend lots of money on salaries and there are team that cannot. Obviously a compromise or a middle ground needs to be reached. I cant imagine how handcuffing everybody into spending only as much as the poorest team is in the best interests of the league.

Just because it's said over and over and over again doesn't make it correct.

Salaries need to come down, that is the problem. A hard cap and revenue sharing is certainly one way to fix that problem (one that has about zero chance of happening BTW) but that doesn't make it the only way.

There are teams that can afford to spend lots of money on salaries and there are team that cannot. Obviously a compromise or a middle ground needs to be reached. I cant imagine how handcuffing everybody into spending only as much as the poorest team is in the best interests of the league.

1st thing:

It is going to happen. How do I know? Because the owners are about to sit out 2 + years to make it happen. Theyre going to break the Union b/c, if they dont get a hard cap, the League dies.

And, yes, it IS the only way. Why do you think the owners put 6 proposals forward that all amounted to a hard cap? Because ITS THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE ECONOMIC VIABILITY.

I love how people seem to think that a luxury tax works "like it does in the NBA"... um, newsflash, it DOESNT work. Walk with me throughvery simplified basic NHL economics as stated by Levitt Report:

NHL yearly total net revenue=1 Bil $
1 Bil divided by 31 (30 teams, 1 league office)= 32,226,000$ a year
NHL yearly net losses = 1.3 Bil$
Net gain/loss= 300 Mil $
300 Mil divided by 31= 9,670,000 Mil lost a year per team/league
% of NHL revenue put to Players= 75%.... of 1 Bil.

So... the players get roughly 750 Mil of the 1 Bil... but ANNUALLY, teams are losing 9 mil $...

So, lets bring in a dollar-for-dollar 40 Mil $ luxury tax... and lets say the extreme, that 12 teams spend 60 Mil... 20 Mil over... so the luxury tax becomes 12 x 20 mil = 240 Mil $ for league.... PROBLEM SOLVED right?..

WRONG:

The league is already LOSING 300 Mil a year. Taking that 240 Mil in you are still having a net loss STILL at 60 Mil$ a year. In other words, the LEAGUE IS STILL BLEEDING MONEY.

I dont know why this is so hard to understand? THERE MUST BE A HARD CAP.

And if you STILL dont get it, heres the link to the site that explains it by the numbers:

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/uro_results.html

I like B) the best, primarily because I think it is a good thing to allow teams to overspend. A glamourous marquee team like Detroit is, in my thinking, exciting and attractive to fans. Nor does the present CBA forbid the creation of competitive, cheaper teams, e.g. Calgary.

I am philosophically opposed to the cap (especially the 31 M cap). No other business allows an owner to buy in and have a guaranteed profit, not even McDonalds.

I am not clear about what "rookie cap bonuses" means. I think that the post should say, "with no rookie bonuses," since the Thornton precedent (the 2/6 formula) has contributed greatly to the massive inflation of salaries. All of the proposals are designed to slow the escalation of player costs, so B) makes little sense unless you delete the bonuses.

u mean like how they (OTT) had to deal Daniel Alfredsson ? oh wait, they didnt, they resigned him.

u mean how they had to deal Yashin ? oh wait, that was a fantastic trade that landed them Spezza and Chara and unloaded Yashin on NYI.

so, what players has OTT had to unload because they cant afford to resign ?

dr

Yeah great, Ottawa may have got Spezza from the trade, but not having Yashin may have been the difference between them having won the cup by now and where they are now without it.

But under a cap, teams still won't be able to keep the good players they drafted. A cap will not allow anyone to sustain a good team for very long.

Why wouldn't they? Is the cap only going to affect 5 teams while everyone else can free-spend? Of course not. Every team will be under the same financial constraints.

Also it's funny how the Montreal Canadiens didn't hesitate to pay a little more for Bonk than what the Sens receive from the Kings ? To me it just show again about the GM competency or lack thereof. Also did I need to mention that Bonk negotiate a new contract for Bonk ? That must mean that Bonk had a specific value for some teams & not for the Sens. This is not a problem of the CBA this is a MANAGEMENT PROBLEM.

That's the thing about what people here make the same mistake time after time with their arguments, they don't look the management part & they blame the CBA for everything that goes wrong with 1 team (usually THE team that they're fan).

I've already answered this.

Teams are willing to pay more so that the player plays for them and not someone else. You can't win hockey games without good players. You can't have good players if you don't outbid the opposition for that player's services.

Teams like Edmonton can't get into bidding wars cause they will lose to teams like the New York Rangers who will offer more. Of course New York is going to offer more money to a given player, because that extra cash will make that player want to play for them instead of a team like Edmonton. Whether a player is only worth 2 million a year or not is pointless. If paying him 2.5 million will encourage the player to leave Edmonton (who can't offer more than 2 million) and join New York, then that is what New York will do. They would be stupid not to, because they would have failed to improve their team. When they sign the player, then New York is a better team for it, and they don't care cause they got the cash. However now the small market Edmonton Oilers are a worse team because of it. Then another player somewhere else expects more money because the player who signed with New York is earning 2.5 million so he thinks he should too. So player salaries go up. Is New York's GM the one to blame? No! He has to improve his team or he gets fired. He just happens to have a bigger cash reserve to draw on than Edmonton. He did what he had to do, but player's salaries around the league will go up because of it.

It's clearly not about "wanting or not wanting" to pay a player a certain amount. New York's GM doesn't "want" to pay the player 2.5 million. But if that's what it will take to improve his team then he will "HAVE" to do it, or else his job will be on the line. Edmonton's GM in this case would kind of "want" to pay 2.5 million to keep the player. But it's just not in the budget. So the small market teams suffer again, and the salaries go higher. It's a never ending cycle.

One thing a hard cap does do is encourage parity. It's been said numerous times throughout this thread that the top teams will lose steam because they won't be able to keep all of their great players under the cap, and that is where the cap philosophy is wrong.

Go back a few years ago before Colorado, Detroit and New Jersey dominanted the Cup for the majority of the past 10 years, and look at the salaries they have toppled out to as a result of their winning. Even if teams like Detroit & Colorado didn't spend nearly as freely in the free agent market, like New Jersey has been able to refrain from largely, they still have to pay their players more each year for being Cup winners essentially.

So for example, take Ottawa or Tampa Bay right now, both great young teams that look like they could be in line the next few years as Cup contenders. Under a hard cap, you'd see these teams losing top end talent because they are unable to continually pay them raises they would seek and mostly earn from winning. The cap would block it, so then these teams would have to trade these players with growing salaries to teams who could afford them under the cap. That's parity.

Non-Homegrown-style cap is a resolution to this issue. Let the teams who develop their players have the chance to keep them, rather than the hard cap forcing the issue.

Again, just look at how the rosters of Detroit & Colorado would have looked over the past 10 years, who won 5/10 cups in that span. They would have had to trade key components that helped them advance in multiple Cup victories.

Of course you can argue against the same teams winning all the time, and that's ok too. What is the point of building a team if you can't make a serious run with them on top?

Why wouldn't they? Is the cap only going to affect 5 teams while everyone else can free-spend? Of course not. Every team will be under the same financial constraints.

every team WILL NOT BE under the same financial constraints. One team could have no cap room while another could have a lot. Does the team with no cap room have the same abilty to sign FA''s or retain their players as the team with $5 million in cap space? How is this equal?


Lets look at now vs. what it would be under a cap:

Now: teams lose players they draft and develop because they can't afford to keep them.

Under a cap: teams lose players they draft and develop because they don't have the cap room to keep them.

Why is it unfair now and fair under a cap?

Isn't the biggest complaint that the small payroll teams are not allowed to keep their players? Tell me how they could keep them under a cap.

I'm running around in circles trying to explain my logic ... I'm dropping out. You're right The current CBA is just perfect. Sorry for initially thinking otherwise.......

Let's give all 30 teams over the past 10 years the exact same players. Let's say that every team has the draft picks and players of Detroit over the last 10 years. Let's say that every team has Detroits scouts, coaching staff and GM.

Now NHLPA fans can't say that it's poor management, coaching or drafting that causes the problems.

Now that everyone is on the exact same level, let's give each team a different amount of revenue. Some teams can make $50-$60 million in revenue. Some teams can only make $30-$40 million in revenue.

I don't have to say anything more. Come back to the winning side friend.

I voted for "C".
The small market guys would have their cap. The rich teams could do what they want but they pay extra for it (I would divide that money amongst the Canadian franchises to offset the difference between Canadian/US dollar and the small market clubs). The players would get to be free agents at 27, going into their prime earning years. A cap of on rookie salaries is a good idea too. Let these "can't miss" guys earn their first fat contract after proving it in the NHL.
Everybody gives up something, but everyone gets something.

I have to agree. Anything that will even up the playing field. That's all I care about is equality.

Let's give all 30 teams over the past 10 years the exact same players. Let's say that every team has the draft picks and players of Detroit over the last 10 years. Let's say that every team has Detroits scouts, coaching staff and GM.

Now NHLPA fans can't say that it's poor management, coaching or drafting that causes the problems.

Now that everyone is on the exact same level, let's give each team a different amount of revenue. Some teams can make $50-$60 million in revenue. Some teams can only make $30-$40 million in revenue.

I don't have to say anything more. Come back to the winning side friend.

You don't win until you tell me how a team that drafts well over a long period of time can keep all of their players under a cap.

I dont know if we want owners just pocketing revenue from the luxury tax and not re-investing it into their teams.

If they do and their team is not successful, then they will pay the price when the fans don't come out.

Maybe too, the league could make sure the teams don't get more than they need to pay that seasons salaries, when the Lux tax cash gets passed around. Each team would have to show it's spending for the year and earnings, etc.

Walk with me throughvery simplified basic NHL economics as stated by Levitt Report:

NHL yearly total net revenue=1 Bil $
1 Bil divided by 31 (30 teams, 1 league office)= 32,226,000$ a year
NHL yearly net losses = 1.3 Bil$
Net gain/loss= 300 Mil $
300 Mil divided by 31= 9,670,000 Mil lost a year per team/league
% of NHL revenue put to Players= 75%.... of 1 Bil.

So... the players get roughly 750 Mil of the 1 Bil... but ANNUALLY, teams are losing 9 mil $...

So, lets bring in a dollar-for-dollar 40 Mil $ luxury tax... and lets say the extreme, that 12 teams spend 60 Mil... 20 Mil over... so the luxury tax becomes 12 x 20 mil = 240 Mil $ for league.... PROBLEM SOLVED right?..

WRONG:

The league is already LOSING 300 Mil a year. Taking that 240 Mil in you are still having a net loss STILL at 60 Mil$ a year. In other words, the LEAGUE IS STILL BLEEDING MONEY.

I dont know why this is so hard to understand? THERE MUST BE A HARD CAP.
Im looking at the Levitt report right now. I dont know where you're getting you're numbers unless you're just making them up for the sake of keeping things simple. League revenues were almost $2 billion (not $1 billion) and league losses are said to be $273 million, not $300 million. Not that big a difference but if you're going to use numbers it's probably better to use accurate ones.

There must be a reduction in player salaries I fully agree. I just dont know why you insist that a hard cap is the only way. I dont agree that bringing every other team in the league down to the level of the poorest is the correct solution.

Anyway the league is not run as a single solitary business. It's a collection of 30 different businesses, each in it's own market with it's own ownership group. Lumping all the numbers together to say the league in total is losing $273 million is rather meaningless. Each year some make a profit and some lose money. And believe it or not some fluctuate between those two states. Maybe one year you go deep in the playoffs and make a good profit and the next you miss the dance and lose a good chunk. As long as the economic environment gives you the opportunity to make a profit over the long haul with a well managed team, then that's all you can ask. And yes I realize that right now this is not the case, it needs to change. I just dont believe it needs as dramatic a change as you propose.

Teams should have the ability to make a profit, in some cases right now they dont and that does need to change. However I dont think we need to go so far as to *guarantee* that each and every team is profitable. If your team is badly managed or the area you're in just doesnt support hockey then maybe you shouldnt have a team, and I dont see what's so wrong about saying that. The website you provided a link to clearly shows that *4* NHL teams are responsible for $142 million of the leagues total operating losses. I dont think it's wrong to say that if your team is low in the standings and not attracting decent crowds then you deserve to be losing money.

So anyway, those are some nice numbers and we certainly agree that player salaries are too high and that they need to come down. However I still havent seen a convincing argument as to why a hard cap is the singular, solitary, and only way to go about it.

1st thing:

It is going to happen. How do I know? Because the owners are about to sit out 2 + years to make it happen. Theyre going to break the Union b/c, if they dont get a hard cap, the League dies.

And, yes, it IS the only way. Why do you think the owners put 6 proposals forward that all amounted to a hard cap? Because ITS THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE ECONOMIC VIABILITY.

I love how people seem to think that a luxury tax works "like it does in the NBA"... um, newsflash, it DOESNT work. Walk with me throughvery simplified basic NHL economics as stated by Levitt Report:

NHL yearly total net revenue=1 Bil $
1 Bil divided by 31 (30 teams, 1 league office)= 32,226,000$ a year
NHL yearly net losses = 1.3 Bil$
Net gain/loss= 300 Mil $
300 Mil divided by 31= 9,670,000 Mil lost a year per team/league
% of NHL revenue put to Players= 75%.... of 1 Bil.

So... the players get roughly 750 Mil of the 1 Bil... but ANNUALLY, teams are losing 9 mil $...

So, lets bring in a dollar-for-dollar 40 Mil $ luxury tax... and lets say the extreme, that 12 teams spend 60 Mil... 20 Mil over... so the luxury tax becomes 12 x 20 mil = 240 Mil $ for league.... PROBLEM SOLVED right?..

WRONG:

The league is already LOSING 300 Mil a year. Taking that 240 Mil in you are still having a net loss STILL at 60 Mil$ a year. In other words, the LEAGUE IS STILL BLEEDING MONEY.

I dont know why this is so hard to understand? THERE MUST BE A HARD CAP.

Now that I see numbers, I have to take back what I said about the luxury tax. Maybe a luxury tax wouldn't make the difference?

I like B) the best, primarily because I think it is a good thing to allow teams to overspend. A glamourous marquee team like Detroit is, in my thinking, exciting and attractive to fans. Nor does the present CBA forbid the creation of competitive, cheaper teams, e.g. Calgary.

I am philosophically opposed to the cap (especially the 31 M cap). No other business allows an owner to buy in and have a guaranteed profit, not even McDonalds.

I am not clear about what "rookie cap bonuses" means. I think that the post should say, "with no rookie bonuses," since the Thornton precedent (the 2/6 formula) has contributed greatly to the massive inflation of salaries. All of the proposals are designed to slow the escalation of player costs, so B) makes little sense unless you delete the bonuses.

McDonalds pays the same to every employee across each state/province. They don't let a wealthier McDonalds steal all the best employees from another with more lucrative salaries. In other words = Cap.

One thing a hard cap does do is encourage parity. It's been said numerous times throughout this thread that the top teams will lose steam because they won't be able to keep all of their great players under the cap, and that is where the cap philosophy is wrong.

Go back a few years ago before Colorado, Detroit and New Jersey dominanted the Cup for the majority of the past 10 years, and look at the salaries they have toppled out to as a result of their winning. Even if teams like Detroit & Colorado didn't spend nearly as freely in the free agent market, like New Jersey has been able to refrain from largely, they still have to pay their players more each year for being Cup winners essentially.

So for example, take Ottawa or Tampa Bay right now, both great young teams that look like they could be in line the next few years as Cup contenders. Under a hard cap, you'd see these teams losing top end talent because they are unable to continually pay them raises they would seek and mostly earn from winning. The cap would block it, so then these teams would have to trade these players with growing salaries to teams who could afford them under the cap. That's parity.

Non-Homegrown-style cap is a resolution to this issue. Let the teams who develop their players have the chance to keep them, rather than the hard cap forcing the issue.

Again, just look at how the rosters of Detroit & Colorado would have looked over the past 10 years, who won 5/10 cups in that span. They would have had to trade key components that helped them advance in multiple Cup victories.

Of course you can argue against the same teams winning all the time, and that's ok too. What is the point of building a team if you can't make a serious run with them on top?

It doesn't matter. Tampa is going to have to lose some players now anyway(Tampa has talked openly in the media about the need for a cap, so why would they complain if they thought they'd be worse off under a cap?), so will Ottawa when the owner no longer wants to lose money. Detroit, New York and some other good teams can keep going endlessly without losing the players they need to win.

Too bad if Detroit can't keep a bunch of expensive UFAs. They can keep a winning team by drafting right, not by buying a team. Young players can fill the void if a player leaves the team. I don't care if Detroit can keep winning, I want to see Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Calgary being CONSISTENT cup competitors. That will never happen under the current CBA.

McDonalds pays the same to every employee across each state/province. They don't let a wealthier McDonalds steal all the best employees from another with more lucrative salaries. In other words = Cap.

First, you can find any nimrod off the street and he'd be a good McDonalds employee. But how many superstar hockey players are there? If I work at McD's and wanted a raise because I'm a great employee, they could fire me and hire anybody to replace me. I'm not intregal. Jerome Iginla is intregal to the Flames.

Now, lets say I'm the best McD's employee in the world, and the franchise I work at would be devestated if I left. Knowing this, the owner of my McD's franchise wants to give me a raise, but alas, he can't becuase he has a cap, and I'm forced to work at another McD's that has enough cap room for me. The first one is so bad off without me, it goes out of business. My new one becomes the best run and most profitable in the enitre chain.

What did the first franchise owner do wrong? He hired an outstanding employee and wanted to keep him , but was prevented. The second owner didn't have to do any reseach on me. He knows my reputation from the previous franchise. He makes out big time because he just so happened to have the right cap room at the right time.

Too bad if Detroit can't keep a bunch of expensive UFAs. They can keep a winning team by drafting right, not by buying a team. Young players can fill the void if a player leaves the team. I don't care if Detroit can keep winning, I want to see Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Calgary being CONSISTENT cup competitors. That will never happen under the current CBA.


How did Detroit build their team? I think you need to look into this a little closer.

NOBODY will be able to be consistent contenders under a cap. This isn't even a theoretical issue. Look at the NFL.

McDonalds pays the same to every employee across each state/province. They don't let a wealthier McDonalds steal all the best employees from another with more lucrative salaries. In other words = Cap.
Wealther McDonald's dont steal the better employees from the poorer McDonald's because there is no such thing as a better McDonald's employee, for all intents and purposes one McDonald's employee is identical to another. And their production impacts very little on the performance of the franchise. That couldnt be further from the truth when talking about a sports team.

every team WILL NOT BE under the same financial constraints. One team could have no cap room while another could have a lot. Does the team with no cap room have the same abilty to sign FA''s or retain their players as the team with $5 million in cap space? How is this equal?

Okay, you are right. I can acknowledge when I lose an argument, unlike some. That's when good scouting, drafting and player development come in. Teams can fill the void with talented young players if they do the right job in those areas. And that's what all you NHLPA fans say anyway, that the teams should do a better job of drafting to make a successful team. Or is that another hypocrisy on the NHLPA fan's side that i'm about to uncover.

Lets look at now vs. what it would be under a cap:

Now: teams lose players they draft and develop because they can't afford to keep them.

Under a cap: teams lose players they draft and develop because they don't have the cap room to keep them.

Why is it unfair now and fair under a cap?

Isn't the biggest complaint that the small payroll teams are not allowed to keep their players? Tell me how they could keep them under a cap.

Because all teams would be on the same level as far as how much they could spend, unlike now when certain teams have an advantage. You are only proving that things would be the same as they are now with your argument. At least under a cap all teams would be equal.

Another NHLPA fans argument blown out of the water, and humility from an NHL Owners fan who admitted he lost 1 argument.

You don't win until you tell me how a team that drafts well over a long period of time can keep all of their players under a cap.

They can't. But they have a constant flow of good young players coming up to fill the void. And no team can hold on to more of those great players than another, because all is equal financially under a cap.

Like some NHLPA fans argue, New York "sucked" when they signed all those free agents and you can only win by drafting well. I've heard that argument repeatedly. Well, under a cap that's what teams will be forced to do. Build a smart team through the draft, and not just go out and buy a team and then "suck." All those great young players coming up through the system will keep any team on top for a long time.

It doesn't matter. Tampa is going to have to lose some players now anyway(Tampa has talked openly in the media about the need for a cap, so why would they complain if they thought they'd be worse off under a cap?), so will Ottawa when the owner no longer wants to lose money. Detroit, New York and some other good teams can keep going endlessly without losing the players they need to win.

Too bad if Detroit can't keep a bunch of expensive UFAs. They can keep a winning team by drafting right, not by buying a team. Young players can fill the void if a player leaves the team. I don't care if Detroit can keep winning, I want to see Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Calgary being CONSISTENT cup competitors. That will never happen under the current CBA.

I never said there should be NO CAP or that I was anti-cap, so get your arguements straight. Just because TB & OTT are on the pro-cap side, most of the league is who aren't the spenders, doesn't mean there is a better solution than the hard cap. I never said I agree with the current CBA either. Actually the solution I offered tends to apply to all teams evenly and fairly, but I guess you have your own agenda.

If you look at how Detroit was built, they were able to turn a lot of their prospects into more valuable players, and oddly enough many of those prospects flopped as well which shows how good the management was. There were also some key homegrown talent that helped to build the team (Yzerman, Federov, Lidstrom, Holmstrom, etc).

My point is that a non-Homegrown style cap would still allow all teams to add some key free agents, but it'd slow down the growth in the UFA market, which is what has really inflated to the point of absurdity. The rookie contracts could be worked on as well. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if you took the league average of players of UFA age requirements, you'd see that there is probably a very high average compared to the league average under $1.8 million. Even if the UFA average was $2.7 million, that'd be 50% greater than the league-wide average. The UFA's are cashing in, and there are a few GM's who are too eager to outbid each other for reasons including hockey and not.

Some of the teams are able to stockpile the higher priced players from other teams as well (see NY, STL, TOR) that they wouldn't be able to do under the non-homegrown cap. That would moderate the RFA salaries even more.

Odds are the non-homegrown cap is as big of a nightmare to the NHLPA as a hard cap, but it's far more flexible by comparison and offers more. The NHL owners could even lower the UFA age and still keep some leverage because of it as well because of the UFA's counting towards a cap.

Im looking at the Levitt report right now. I dont know where you're getting you're numbers unless you're just making them up for the sake of keeping things simple. League revenues were almost $2 billion (not $1 billion) and league losses are said to be $273 million, not $300 million. Not that big a difference but if you're going to use numbers it's probably better to use accurate ones.

There must be a reduction in player salaries I fully agree. I just dont know why you insist that a hard cap is the only way. I dont agree that bringing every other team in the league down to the level of the poorest is the correct solution.

Anyway the league is not run as a single solitary business. It's a collection of 30 different businesses, each in it's own market with it's own ownership group. Lumping all the numbers together to say the league in total is losing $273 million is rather meaningless. Each year some make a profit and some lose money. And believe it or not some fluctuate between those two states. Maybe one year you go deep in the playoffs and make a good profit and the next you miss the dance and lose a good chunk. As long as the economic environment gives you the opportunity to make a profit over the long haul with a well managed team, then that's all you can ask. And yes I realize that right now this is not the case, it needs to change. I just dont believe it needs as dramatic a change as you propose.

Teams should have the ability to make a profit, in some cases right now they dont and that does need to change. However I dont think we need to go so far as to *guarantee* that each and every team is profitable. If your team is badly managed or the area you're in just doesnt support hockey then maybe you shouldnt have a team, and I dont see what's so wrong about saying that. The website you provided a link to clearly shows that *4* NHL teams are responsible for $142 million of the leagues total operating losses. I dont think it's wrong to say that if your team is low in the standings and not attracting decent crowds then you deserve to be losing money.

So anyway, those are some nice numbers and we certainly agree that player salaries are too high and that they need to come down. However I still havent seen a convincing argument as to why a hard cap is the singular, solitary, and only way to go about it.

Maybe I wasn't so wrong. I'd be happy to get the compromise of a $45 million luxury tax, if that's possible. It would help more than the current CBA.

First, you can find any nimrod off the street and he'd be a good McDonalds employee.
Now, lets say I'm the best McD's employee in the world, and the franchise I work at would be devestated if I left. Knowing this, the owner of my McD's franchise wants to give me a raise, but alas, he can't becuase he has a cap, and I'm forced to work at another McD's that has enough cap room for me. The first one is so bad off without me, it goes out of business. My new one becomes the best run and most profitable in the enitre chain.
What did the first franchise owner do wrong? He hired an outstanding employee and wanted to keep him , but was prevented. The second owner didn't have to do any reseach on me. He knows my reputation from the previous franchise. He makes out big time because he just so happened to have the right cap room at the right time.

Ha. McDonalds has a "Salary Structure" which is an option for the NHL. The guy who runs the McDonalds at the other location wouldn't be able to pay the employee more because of the "Salary Structure." A salary structure is like a cap.

If your comparison were true, then the other McDonalds is responsible to make sure it is "drafting" the right young talent to fill in for the gaps. That is responsible management after all, and that is exactly what NHLPA fans say is missing from the league right now. Remember, at least the rich McDonalds has the same "salary structure or cap" as the poor McDonalds so every McDonalds has the same opportunity to compete. If they fail to, it wasn't because the other McDonalds had a bigger budget. It was because the failed McDonalds didn't do a good job management wise. They could have "drafted" other great employees to fill the gap. If they didn't, then they deserve to fail. You talk as though there are only 29 stars in the NHL and that 1 of 30 teams will fold because they didn't have one.

First, you can find any nimrod off the street and he'd be a good McDonalds employee. But how many superstar hockey players are there? If I work at McD's and wanted a raise because I'm a great employee, they could fire me and hire anybody to replace me. I'm not intregal. Jerome Iginla is intregal to the Flames.

Now, lets say I'm the best McD's employee in the world, and the franchise I work at would be devestated if I left. Knowing this, the owner of my McD's franchise wants to give me a raise, but alas, he can't becuase he has a cap, and I'm forced to work at another McD's that has enough cap room for me. The first one is so bad off without me, it goes out of business. My new one becomes the best run and most profitable in the enitre chain.

What did the first franchise owner do wrong? He hired an outstanding employee and wanted to keep him , but was prevented. The second owner didn't have to do any reseach on me. He knows my reputation from the previous franchise. He makes out big time because he just so happened to have the right cap room at the right time.

A better answer to you is that the situation you describe above is what small market teams face everyday. At least with a cap, all teams would have to face that situation. Then good management and scouting/drafting/player development will be more important than ever.

How did Detroit build their team? I think you need to look into this a little closer.

NOBODY will be able to be consistent contenders under a cap. This isn't even a theoretical issue. Look at the NFL.

It doesn't matter how Colorado and Detroit built the core of their teams. Small market teams can build a good core too. The difference is how teams like Detroit and Colorado make huge free agent signings to bring in important players to push that core over the top. Calgary could never sign on a Dominik Hasek and a Ray Bourque and a Rob Blake and a Derian Hatcher and a Luc Robitaille and a Brendan Shanahan and a Brett Hull, etc. The list goes on and on my friend. That's what the difference has been in the NHL for too long.

You also can not tell me that Colorado (with all the great young players they've drafted) could not remain a contender for a long time. The core of that team could still be based on the great players they've drafted. Instead they've traded many of the young players to get a better player sooner than wait for that young player to develop. But even if they did wait for the young players to develop, they'd still be a fantastic team.

They can't. But they have a constant flow of good young players coming up to fill the void. And no team can hold on to more of those great players than another, because all is equal financially under a cap.

Like some NHLPA fans argue, New York "sucked" when they signed all those free agents and you can only win by drafting well. I've heard that argument repeatedly. Well, under a cap that's what teams will be forced to do. Build a smart team through the draft, and not just go out and buy a team and then "suck." All those great young players coming up through the system will keep any team on top for a long time.

And when you draft a lot of talented players, those players are eventually going to want a raise. At some point a team that drafts well will run out of cap space, forcing them to give up some of those players. Should teams that draft well become farm teams for the rest of the league?

The Red Wings drafted Lidstrom. As Lidstrom became better, he got raises. Whether they were in line with what he should've gotten is not the argument I'm having. Along about 1998, he bcame the best defensemen in the league, and in 1999 his contract ran out. Under a cap, the Red Wings probably would not have been able to resign him. Also in 1998, the Red Wings drafted Jiri Fischer, someone who will probably become a pretty good defensemen some day. He could not have stepped into Lidstrom's spot in 1999. The Red Wings would have suffered, even though they made a great draft pick in Lidstrom, and a good pick in Fischer. So the Red Wings would have taken a step back and not been contenders for a while. Fischer still hasn't developed, and may not. Meanwhile a team with the cap room signed Lidstrom, and became a contender. What did that new team do? The didn't have to have any scouting staff to realize Lidstrom would be a huge addition. They didn't have to have the foresight to draft him. They didn't have to develop him. They did absolutley no work, and received one of the best players in the league, only because they had less money tied up. Under a cap, it would be about who can afford a contract, because by definition every team could. It bcomes who has the least amount tied up in a cap when a superstar, or even a good player becomes a free agent.

A cap system actually encourages teams to draft poorly. They don't need to spend anything on scouting or minor league coaching, they just let other teams do it. By drafting poorly, they are not going to have to eat their cap up by resigning anyone. They just have to sit around until Atlanta can't fit Kovalchuk into their cap, or Calgary can't fit Iginla into their's, or Florida can't fit Luongo into their's. Teams that draft poorly are going to have their choice of superstars, pretty much on a yearly basis.

Wealther McDonald's dont steal the better employees from the poorer McDonald's because there is no such thing as a better McDonald's employee, for all intents and purposes one McDonald's employee is identical to another. And their production impacts very little on the performance of the franchise. That couldnt be further from the truth when talking about a sports team.

I worked at 7/11 for 3 years. Trust me, crappy employees do cause a business to be less successful. I've worked with my fair share of lazy people who couldn't care less if people are walking through spilt Slurpee. Customers don't really appreciate that.

A better answer to you is that the situation you describe above is what small market teams face everyday. At least with a cap, all teams would have to face that situation. Then good management and scouting/drafting/player development will be more important than ever.

But its not the same unfairness for everybody. You already agreed with me on that. Some teams will have less cap room than others. Therefore some teams will have an advantage.

Wealther McDonald's dont steal the better employees from the poorer McDonald's because there is no such thing as a better McDonald's employee, for all intents and purposes one McDonald's employee is identical to another. And their production impacts very little on the performance of the franchise. That couldnt be further from the truth when talking about a sports team.

And a hockey team will not die if it doesn't have a "super star" player. As long as a team is successful fairly consistently, it will survive. Look at Edmonton. They don't have any Super Stars. Ryan Smith has been good at times, but there is no real "super star."

I never said there should be NO CAP or that I was anti-cap, so get your arguements straight. Just because TB & OTT are on the pro-cap side, most of the league is who aren't the spenders, doesn't mean there is a better solution than the hard cap. I never said I agree with the current CBA either. Actually the solution I offered tends to apply to all teams evenly and fairly, but I guess you have your own agenda.

If you look at how Detroit was built, they were able to turn a lot of their prospects into more valuable players, and oddly enough many of those prospects flopped as well which shows how good the management was. There were also some key homegrown talent that helped to build the team (Yzerman, Federov, Lidstrom, Holmstrom, etc).

My point is that a non-Homegrown style cap would still allow all teams to add some key free agents, but it'd slow down the growth in the UFA market, which is what has really inflated to the point of absurdity. The rookie contracts could be worked on as well. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if you took the league average of players of UFA age requirements, you'd see that there is probably a very high average compared to the league average under $1.8 million. Even if the UFA average was $2.7 million, that'd be 50% greater than the league-wide average. The UFA's are cashing in, and there are a few GM's who are too eager to outbid each other for reasons including hockey and not.

Some of the teams are able to stockpile the higher priced players from other teams as well (see NY, STL, TOR) that they wouldn't be able to do under the non-homegrown cap. That would moderate the RFA salaries even more.

Odds are the non-homegrown cap is as big of a nightmare to the NHLPA as a hard cap, but it's far more flexible by comparison and offers more. The NHL owners could even lower the UFA age and still keep some leverage because of it as well because of the UFA's counting towards a cap.

Well I don't know what I said to you that I thought you were anti-cap. I just want each team to have an equal opportunity financially. I don't care if it's a cap or luxury tax as long as all teams have the same opportunity financially.

I don't know what you mean by non-homegrown cap, I guess you mean luxury tax?

And when you draft a lot of talented players, those players are eventually going to want a raise. At some point a team that drafts well will run out of cap space, forcing them to give up some of those players. Should teams that draft well become farm teams for the rest of the league?

The Red Wings drafted Lidstrom. As Lidstrom became better, he got raises. Whether they were in line with what he should've gotten is not the argument I'm having. Along about 1998, he bcame the best defensemen in the league, and in 1999 his contract ran out. Under a cap, the Red Wings probably would not have been able to resign him. Also in 1998, the Red Wings drafted Jiri Fischer, someone who will probably become a pretty good defensemen some day. He could not have stepped into Lidstrom's spot in 1999. The Red Wings would have suffered, even though they made a great draft pick in Lidstrom, and a good pick in Fischer. So the Red Wings would have taken a step back and not been contenders for a while. Fischer still hasn't developed, and may not. Meanwhile a team with the cap room signed Lidstrom, and became a contender. What did that new team do? The didn't have to have any scouting staff to realize Lidstrom would be a huge addition. They didn't have to have the foresight to draft him. They didn't have to develop him. They did absolutley no work, and received one of the best players in the league, only because they had less money tied up. Under a cap, it would be about who can afford a contract, because by definition every team could. It bcomes who has the least amount tied up in a cap when a superstar, or even a good player becomes a free agent.

A cap system actually encourages teams to draft poorly. They don't need to spend anything on scouting or minor league coaching, they just let other teams do it. By drafting poorly, they are not going to have to eat their cap up by resigning anyone. They just have to sit around until Atlanta can't fit Kovalchuk into their cap, or Calgary can't fit Iginla into their's, or Florida can't fit Luongo into their's. Teams that draft poorly are going to have their choice of superstars, pretty much on a yearly basis.

I understand your point. Detroit would probably lose Lidstrom, and Detroit and it's fans would suffer. I agree with you 110%. That would really suck for sure.

But you see, all the small market teams face the situation you describe right now without a cap. Why should only some teams face that situation while teams like Detroit are exempt?

It's there where your argument stalls like a German Panzer in a Russian winter.

But its not the same unfairness for everybody. You already agreed with me on that. Some teams will have less cap room than others. Therefore some teams will have an advantage.

In the NHL now, it's always the small market teams that have less "cap" room than others due to a smaller revenue. Currently, it's always the same small market teams that have to lose players to large markets due to having less "cap" room than the large markets like Detroit. The fairness will come in because the situation will finally be able to occur both ways, where teams like Detroit will finally lose top players like a Niklas Lidstrom to a team like Calgary, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, etc.

I can't wait until the day when I see a superstar elite player leave a big market city to go to a team like Edmonton/Calgary/Pittsburgh/etc. I'd love to see Pittsburgh sign Lidstrom. Or Calgary sign Martin St.Louis. It's about time things work both ways!

That's the best NHLPA fan argument I have gotten yet though. I really had to think there.

A cap system actually encourages teams to draft poorly. They don't need to spend anything on scouting or minor league coaching, they just let other teams do it. By drafting poorly, they are not going to have to eat their cap up by resigning anyone. They just have to sit around until Atlanta can't fit Kovalchuk into their cap, or Calgary can't fit Iginla into their's, or Florida can't fit Luongo into their's. Teams that draft poorly are going to have their choice of superstars, pretty much on a yearly basis.

I have a little trouble with this idea. A team is going to intentially draft poorly, on the chance that they may get to bid on a "superstar", even though that superstar will do nothing for the team if they don't have a decent supporting cast around them? So, how many years is a team going to draft poorly and be uncompetetive to be able to get enough cap room to sign this star player? Then let's say they do get one star player, maybe even two. They are still going to be little better than average since they have drafted so poorly. What fans are going to support a team like that?

A cap maybe unfair to a certain extent to teams that draft well, but drafting well is only part of what a team must do well to be successful. They must also manage their assets well. To manage your assests well, you assess who on your team is essential to your success, and you work to keep those players. Those that are not essential, but are becoming pricey get traded for draft picks or prospects. Since your team is so good at drafting, they should have a steady stream of good players coming in to replace the good players you need to let go. If a team is truly good at drafting, they should be able to handle this "unfairness" pretty well.

I understand your point. Detroit would probably lose Lidstrom, and Detroit and it's fans would suffer. I agree with you 110%. That would really suck for sure.

But you see, all the small market teams face the situation you describe right now without a cap. Why should only some teams face that situation while teams like Detroit are exempt?

It's there where your argument stalls like a German Panzer in a Russian winter.

And I never said it was fair for teams now. All I'm saying about a cap is that TEAMS THAT DRAFT WELL WILL BE PUNISHED, doesn't matter if its Detroit, Calgary or the Rangers. My argument against a hard cap has nothing to do with what I think of the current system. I would wholeheartedly endorse either a luxury tax, which increases revenue to small market teams(something a cap does not), or a NBA style cap, which allows teams to go over to retain their own free agents.

And once again, all teams would not face the same situations under a cap. We've been over this, and you agreed with me. :banghead:

I have a little trouble with this idea. A team is going to intentially draft poorly, on the chance that they may get to bid on a "superstar", even though that superstar will do nothing for the team if they don't have a decent supporting cast around them? So, how many years is a team going to draft poorly and be uncompetetive to be able to get enough cap room to sign this star player? Then let's say they do get one star player, maybe even two. They are still going to be little better than average since they have drafted so poorly. What fans are going to support a team like that?

A cap maybe unfair to a certain extent to teams that draft well, but drafting well is only part of what a team must do well to be successful. They must also manage their assets well. To manage your assests well, you assess who on your team is essential to your success, and you work to keep those players. Those that are not essential, but are becoming pricey get traded for draft picks or prospects. Since your team is so good at drafting, they should have a steady stream of good players coming in to replace the good players you need to let go. If a team is truly good at drafting, they should be able to handle this "unfairness" pretty well.

Another point to mention, is that not every player you lose to FA has to be replaced by a young player you drafted. Teams can always trade for another player who does the same kind of job, but for a little less money. That's what Tampa Bay has started to do. I bet Tampa will still be a contender after replacing some of their players who signed elsewhere, as long as Tampa manages well and holds on to their most important players. There are always players out there who do a similar job for a little less money. And you rarely would have to replace elite players on your team. It's mostly the mid to lower level players that you need to replace. A good GM can replace those players without catastrophic results, i'm sure.

I have a little trouble with this idea. A team is going to intentially draft poorly, on the chance that they may get to bid on a "superstar", even though that superstar will do nothing for the team if they don't have a decent supporting cast around them? So, how many years is a team going to draft poorly and be uncompetetive to be able to get enough cap room to sign this star player? Then let's say they do get one star player, maybe even two. They are still going to be little better than average since they have drafted so poorly. What fans are going to support a team like that?

A cap maybe unfair to a certain extent to teams that draft well, but drafting well is only part of what a team must do well to be successful. They must also manage their assets well. To manage your assests well, you assess who on your team is essential to your success, and you work to keep those players. Those that are not essential, but are becoming pricey get traded for draft picks or prospects. Since your team is so good at drafting, they should have a steady stream of good players coming in to replace the good players you need to let go. If a team is truly good at drafting, they should be able to handle this "unfairness" pretty well.

Well, under a cap I fully expect there to be at least one "superstar" and several very good players available every year because their original teams won't have the room to sign them. Maybe my exapml;e is a little extreme, teams obviously aren't going to draft poorly on purpose. I guess what i was getting at is that a bad few yeras of drafting will be alot easier to overcome.


I challenge anybody to find a better 20 years of drafting (not including Montreal when they had 1st choice of any Quebecios) than the Red Wings have had since 1983, yet how many true "superstars" have they gotten from those drafts? Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom. My point is you can't just replace elite players, and elite players are going to be the ones too expenive to resign under a cap.

And a hockey team will not die if it doesn't have a "super star" player. As long as a team is successful fairly consistently, it will survive. Look at Edmonton. They don't have any Super Stars. Ryan Smith has been good at times, but there is no real "super star."
Thank you. I completely agree. So why the need for a salary cap if you dont really need star players anyway?
I worked at 7/11 for 3 years. Trust me, crappy employees do cause a business to be less successful. I've worked with my fair share of lazy people who couldn't care less if people are walking through spilt Slurpee. Customers don't really appreciate that.
Im sure they don't. I'll bet it didnt stop them from coming back the next time they needed milk and bread though. Anyway the point was that players in the NHL have a tremendous impact on the success of their team, much more so than at McDonalds or 7/11. Im sure you can agree with that. I mean I like the guy who works at the corner store behind me but Im still not buying his jersey.

I understand your point. Detroit would probably lose Lidstrom, and Detroit and it's fans would suffer. I agree with you 110%. That would really suck for sure.



And would you say any team losing a superstar, or any player they drafted and wanted to keep because of a salary cap is fair or unfair? Again, throwing out the "its not fair now" story. I've agreed there needs to be changes.

If its fair, why? Give me some examples. If its not fair, how can you say a salary cap makes it fair for everyone?

And would you say any team losing a superstar, or any player they drafted and wanted to keep because of a salary cap is fair or unfair? Again, throwing out the "its not fair now" story. I've agreed there needs to be changes.

If its fair, why? Give me some examples. If its not fair, how can you say a salary cap makes it fair for everyone?


Any team losing a player they want to keep is not good for the team or the fans, but it's also not just the teams decision. The player has a big say in that, so I'm not sure if you can call it fair or unfair just because they lost a player.

What makes a team losing a player that they want to keep unfair is that some teams have vastly larger budgets than other teams. It's unfair because you can draft well, manage well, and develop players well, but someone else can still outbid you for a players services even if they already have as high a skill level or higher skill level than your team. And, they don't even have to out bid you for that players services, they can just drive up the player salaries to the point that your team can't meet the player's salary demand before that player is a free agent.

And I never said it was fair for teams now. All I'm saying about a cap is that TEAMS THAT DRAFT WELL WILL BE PUNISHED, doesn't matter if its Detroit, Calgary or the Rangers. My argument against a hard cap has nothing to do with what I think of the current system. I would wholeheartedly endorse either a luxury tax, which increases revenue to small market teams(something a cap does not), or a NBA style cap, which allows teams to go over to retain their own free agents.

And once again, all teams would not face the same situations under a cap. We've been over this, and you agreed with me. :banghead:

Then we are on the same side. I'm not arguing with people who want some sort of system to balance the NHL. I'm arguing with the current CBA lovers. That's what i'll call them from now on instead of NHLPA fans.

I was wrong to agree with you, because I realize that fairness under a cap is just a matter of perspective. If you are the team who loses someone then it's unfair, but it's fair for the team who gains, and every team will have an equal opportunity for both failure and gain under a cap. That is total absolute equality only changed by the talents of the team's management. I just wanted to prove that I can lose an argument, because dr said that what I say is not right just because I think it is. I'm not like Adolph Hitler who maintained that Germany could still win the war until the Russians were walking through Berlin. I have and will again acknowledge the victor of an argument. In this NHLPA vs NHL "discussion," I have easily refuted every Current CBA Lover's argument. I just haven't seen any victors come from the CCL - Current CBA Lover's camp.

If every team had the same coaches GMs, scouts, draft picks, players etc from the last 10 years, like I argued before, then all teams would be even. Except that currently, all teams have different budgets based on revenue. Under a cap, all teams would be identical because not only would they have the same players, draft picks, management and coaching, they would have the same budgets to work from. That is complete equality that is only changed by the talents of the GMs, Scouts and Coaches. Under a salary cap, players will learn the harsh lesson that no one will pay them $10 million anymore. And they will have to choose to cut their salary or move their families elsewhere for $1 million or so more.

Thank you. I completely agree. So why the need for a salary cap if you dont really need star players anyway?


I said Super Star. Not star. Super Stars make $10 million a year. Not star players.

You know darn well that teams need star players, therefore by your argument, we therefore need a salary cap.

Thank you. I completely agree. So why the need for a salary cap if you dont really need star players anyway?

Im sure they don't. I'll bet it didnt stop them from coming back the next time they needed milk and bread though. Anyway the point was that players in the NHL have a tremendous impact on the success of their team, much more so than at McDonalds or 7/11. Im sure you can agree with that. I mean I like the guy who works at the corner store behind me but Im still not buying his jersey.

At that location it would cause there was a Petro Canada, Shell and Esso within a few blocks.

Any team losing a player they want to keep is not good for the team or the fans, but it's also not just the teams decision. The player has a big say in that, so I'm not sure if you can call it fair or unfair just because they lost a player.

What makes a team losing a player that they want to keep unfair is that some teams have vastly larger budgets than other teams. It's unfair because you can draft well, manage well, and develop players well, but someone else can still outbid you for a players services even if they already have as high a skill level or higher skill level than your team. And, they don't even have to out bid you for that players services, they can just drive up the player salaries to the point that your team can't meet the player's salary demand before that player is a free agent.

Well said. :yo:

It's also true that fans will only be mad at players for their leaving, not their team. Most of the time anyway...

Any team losing a player they want to keep is not good for the team or the fans, but it's also not just the teams decision. The player has a big say in that, so I'm not sure if you can call it fair or unfair just because they lost a player.

What makes a team losing a player that they want to keep unfair is that some teams have vastly larger budgets than other teams. It's unfair because you can draft well, manage well, and develop players well, but someone else can still outbid you for a players services even if they already have as high a skill level or higher skill level than your team. And, they don't even have to out bid you for that players services, they can just drive up the player salaries to the point that your team can't meet the player's salary demand before that player is a free agent.



You say that a team can draft, manage and develop well but be outbid when those players become free agents. I don't disagree with this, but no one has been able to tell me how you can keep those same playes under a cap.

You cannot equalize the abilty to scout and develop players. There will always be some teams that always find great prospects and others won't.

So my question is how is the management of teams equalized? If every team is truly equal, like people say it will be under a cap, how does the league exist? If every team had the exact same talent level, same quality of players, same coaching, same managment and same budget, wouldn't every game end in a tie?

The point of having a team is building one to compete with others in a league. The league has a system to determine who has the best team. All the teams could be equally great or equally terrible under a cap, it wouldn't matter. If they're all equal, there is no way to determine who is best, therefore no reason to play.

If they're all equal, there is no way to determine who is best, therefore no reason to play.

Or worse as many NFL coaches, players and media have talked about lately is the mediocrity and frustrations of a league with a cap and parity. Google - NFL parity or mediocrity - and im sure you'll find a few examples. They are finding what they once thought was perfect fairness was illusory.

It sure seemed unfair to me, a Sens fan, when we had to lose Yashin because we were a poor small market. Of course today we could afford him. Because we are winning. It is fair that winning teams can take these players, its a good hockey decision for losing teams with expensive players to trade them and rebuild with younger players.

There shouldnt be any embarassment over the idea fans are bandwagoners. That only great teams draw lots of fans other than the few perma-markets. This is the reality you have to accomodate with a system. This reality dicatates that not all teams will be good at the same time. We need a system that allows for great teams and rebuilding teams to co-exist. THis is why the concept of a system that generates 30 equal teams is flawed - it is not fair. Strange as that sounds.

$30mil teams may not seem to be able to compete with $60mil teams this year, but watch what happens if they have success. They become the $60mil team. Every team has equal opportunity to develop a $50Mil team. Even small market Ottawa who 2 years ago was the poster boy for why CBA changes were needed. Ottawa fans thought we had no chance against big spending Toronto 2 years ago. Now many of us know better.

It wasnt because we were small market, it was because we werent succesful yet. Getting that first success is th hard part and isnt advantaged by money. Sustaining success brings you into the big spenders club.

It wasnt because we were small market, it was because we werent succesful yet. Getting that first success is th hard part and isnt advantaged by money. Sustaining success brings you into the big spenders club.

And since a cap precludes any team from being big spenders, sustained success is not possible.

Luxury Cap 45M$ ($ for $) + UFA @ 29 years old + Rookie Cap bonuses.