stevkrause

Can we PLEASE keep politics off this ******* board?!?! and yes, I used vulgarity, which most of you will note I never use on this board... that is how annoyed I am by the right-wing nutjobs with the ******* Obama comments when it has NO ******* RELEVANCE ON THIS BOARD For the record, this is not directed towards the OP, as his link was actually pretty funny, because of the tagline and the obstruction connotations... this is directed to all the people that take this as an open invite to start making half-assed, ignorant comments because of the door they thought was opened by the link...

The way I think it is better, is that it encourages player development and offers incentive to retaining your own high level players, while still making it able to add a piece or 2, or have some wiggle room for call ups while still being "right up against the cap" - Also, the revenue it would generate for profit sharing would not automatically equate to teams spending more - I am certain that more often than not, there would be a surplus left over and that would be distributed as just pure revenue... the point of forcing teams to spend more off of what they initially claim, is just that, a way to force owners to put the money back into their team... then any surplus, can go directly back into their pockets and no no team is FORCED to take the luxury tax money, so it gives incentive to use it properly. I agree 100% that the pre-cap era proved that owners could not be trusted to be responsible in a wide open format, but I think a little more flexibility (soft cap) would allow teams to exercise more risk/reward management, while still having a check and balance in place...

This is something I just can't get over as to why the NHL does not have one... they could even make it a very detailed Luxury tax to prevent crazy contracts thrown at FA's, or teams buying up all the talent... 1. Teams can exceed the cap by up to 10% of the cap, but must match dollar for dollar for every amount they go over (ex. if a team goes over the cap by 5 million, they must pay an additional 5 million into a league revenue sharing program) 2. All the money generated by teams utilizing the Luxury Tax will be dispersed to all the other teams in the NHL which are ONLY ABOVE the cap floor by 50% or less (ex. If the cap floor is 50 million and the ceiling is 70 million - all teams with a cap of 60 million or less would get an equal cut of the Luxury Tax pool, as opted) 3. ALL TEAMS which ACCEPT money from this Luxury Tax pool get a new, modified floor and MUST exceed the cap floor by at least 110% of the Luxury Tax money they were given (ex. If the cap floor is 50 million and Team X receives 1 million in Luxury Tax sharing, their new cap floor becomes 51.1 million) or they can opt for only a percentage of the revenue sharing revenue offered (under the same guidelines as above, 110% rule, etc, etc) or opt out of the revenue sharing all together and the revenue would then get dispersed to the rest of the qualifying teams - If for any reason there were revenue left over from the revenue sharing system, it would get evenly split between the 30 teams and has no salary cap implications(basically it would just go back into the owner's pockets) 4. Teams are given a home grown cap relief player - Every team can designate ONE player on their roster which is given a "Franchise Tag"(player must have been drafted by the team to qualify) - 20% of this players salary will NOT count against the cap (this applies to both the floor and the ceiling) but WILL count towards the luxury tax total if it takes the team over the cap - This tag must be applied yearly (ex. If player X was tagged in 2009, it does not mean they are automatically tagged in 2010 and the team can opt to tag a different player, if desired) - They still cannot exceed the league max contract and if they are traded, the team absorbing the contract absorbs 100% of the contract as the cap hit I think this system would actually pump MORE money into the league from the bigger teams which are willing to pay it, however, since it has a HARD cap value of only 10% over, teams will not be able to go out and just buy up all the talent in the league, or simply throw money at their problems (ala NY Yankees) - Also, the smaller markets would be given more money, which they would HAVE to spend on their team, to improve their on ice talent... this also encourages players to stay where they came from, thus letting markets attach themselves to players closer and fan bases to have investments in individual players (good for marketing) I don't see how this could do anything but positive things for the league and think, if anything, it would actually create BETTER parity...

I likes, I likes

hahaha, well said

From the horses mouth... well, if this is indeed the general consensus of majority of the NHL owners, then this whole topic is moot I guess...

and if they're rotated, it's because the other hasn't won the spot either... the point I was making, is it's one or the other night in and out. period. minus the Lebda part... some things shouldn't even be joked about!

But if a team is turning a MASSIVE profit, why shouldn't they be allowed to exercise that option? I think there should be checks and balances in place as well though - a league where the same teams are the only ones competing year in and year out isn't as exciting... this is why I like the idea of a soft cap. I think a hard cap punishes teams who do it right, but I think no cap punishes teams that simply don't have the population or gate to compete with every other team, but it doesn't mean their fans aren't just as intense or passionate and this is what led to great teams like the Whalers and Nordiques going away in the first place and that is not good for the game either...

Good, he's earned it and belongs in the NHL... he could end up being a very steadying force on their blueline and has looked VERY solid out there for them this preseason... Also, that translation... um... what?!?!?

um... no. 100% wrong. He was already waived and has concussion issues right now, he is destined for GR or another team, no ifs, ands, or buts about it... If Ericsson does not earn that spot, it is Kindl's. period.

Doubtful... you're more likely to see Janik in if Salei gets hurt and we have multiple injuries, if E doesn't earn/loses his spot as the 6th d-man, Kindl will take it and it hurts to say this (unapologetic Ericsson fan here) but Kindl has outplayed Ericsson thus far in the pre-season and probably already has earned the 6th spot, whether he is given it or not remains to be seen however...

I think there are more teams than you realize that are able to spend more (Detroit, Toronto, New York, Montreal, New Jersey, Vancouver, Boston, Calgary, Ottawa, Philadelphia and maybe Chicago, San Jose, Pittsburgh and Washington depending on how they're playing and the attendance they are generating) and I only proposed being able to go 10% over the cap and matching that dollar for dollar into revenue sharing, that would be one more big contract or 2 at most if a team utilizes the salary cap franchise tag buffer AND the full luxury tax overage, in reality, it would probably only actually equate to one more top 6 forward or one more top 4 d-man to a team and because of that additional revenue, one of the lower teams may be able to afford one more top 6 forward or one more top 4 dman as well... I think we're all getting caught up on semantics, like I said all along, my proposal isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the current situation in place and I think it's a step towards a better league... However, it is fun to watch Holland and co. work their magic within the cap and still ice such an amazing team... that is almost a game in itself...

Apparently a lingering hip injury is forcing him to retire at 25 http://www.mlive.com/griffins/index.ssf/2010/09/hip_injury_forces_longtime_gri.html

Chalk it up to a mis-understanding then, because I was implying that I thought you may have missed a part, not that you did not understand it... The details would most certainly need to be worked out by someone who understands the economics of the league and finances as a whole on a MUCH deeper level than this for sure, but my point is, that I think these are very salient and feasible jumping off points and the general idea is what I'm most concerned with...

I watched the game on NHL network last night and he looked solid, 15mins played, +1 rating and looked very solid on the PK... which was needed because VAN scored at least one PP goal when he wasn't on the ice and I don't think he was on the ice for the other PP goal against either...

What did I take personally? I was merely offering a rebuttal to your points - that is what a solid debate is... I at no point got defensive, or insulted your points... I think maybe you're taking my replies too personally if that is how you interpreted it and should take a step back and look in the mirror before slinging insults of your own.... Back to the point at hand, as I stated above, the league should not be responsible for protecting a team from it's own poor management. The only repsonsibility the league has is to give teams every opportunity to grow their team and put a good product on the ice, which then leads to more excitement, more playoffs, more competition and therefore, more revenue. In all aspects of life, putting constraints on the majority to appease the minority is a poor practice and this is no different... That is part of the problem though - a hard cap still does not allow for this... until there is no floor as well, the teams that do not generate as much revenue are still in no better shape, at least a luxury tax puts some more revenue in their pockets towards operating expenses... also, as I said in the proposal, any unclaimed luxury tax revenue would then get dispersed to all teams evenly and this would go back into the pockets of the owners, also adding to profit margins... as I've said all along, I understand my proposal isn't perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction and something that the league needs to start seriously considering...

Disturbing to say the least...

Because it's become a miserable product with the final 2 minutes of every game taking 5 hours and the game is filled with societal abortions of human beings... it's hard to back a game with so many low-lives in it... the league needs to stop marketing d-bags like Lebron and Kobe and market higher quality human beings that are intelligent, valuable members of society like Chauncy Billups (maybe moreso in his hayday as his quality of play has decreased with age), Chris Paul, Joe Johnson and Tim Duncan... Also, the game is run by a joke of a commissioner... which just so happens to be Bettman's mentor.. surprise, huh?

The Hawks are an original 6 team, the Penguins have been a club since 1967 and come from a VERY strong hockey market, the Capitals as well, come from a strong hockey market and have been around since 1974... LA was one of the first "non-traditional" hockey markets the NHL expanded into and with transplants in LA and the amount of disposable income out there, was a very safe and calculated expansion (also around since 1967 and there were the California Seals out there as well at the time)... also, this system would only pump MORE revenue into those expanding markets and allow them to grow... ALSO Winnipeg AND Quebec deserve teams, but already had teams before... This question is asked in 100% seriousness and not meant to be disrespectful, but how long have you been following NHL hockey? A few of your recent posts lead me to believe you're a very new fan and if so, that's COMPLETELY fine and GREAT - the game needs new fans, I was just wondering...

1. No team is going to spend more on its own RFA's than they have to and there are no "hold outs" in the NHL today under the new CBA - Worst case scenario, it goes to arbitration and they choose to keep the player, or he is now an UFA.... Any team which would purposely jack up the salary of an RFA to "use their luxury tax money" should fire their GM, because obviously, he doesn't know how to manage a team and is wasting money which could go to better use... 2. Same as I stated in part 1 - If a team doesn't know how to manage its cap and finances, that is a team issue, not a league issue and the owner of said team should then put the proper people in place who DO know how to manage the team given the guidelines... that's like saying that drinking should be illegal, because some people don't know how to handle their booze and may kill someone because they didn't plan ahead and get behind a wheel after putting down a case... Also note in my rules, I very clearly state that a team can opt out of the pool money, or choose only a percentage of it, so they don't HAVE to use it - Please re-read my proposal...

Where are you getting your numbers from? We most certainly do NOT have 1.5 worth of cap space to just eat... let alone to force a player out that can still contribute just as much as Drew Miller can at this stage in his career... we're less that 1m below right now and that's not even factoring the additional salary we would need for the other roster player replacing Draper, plus injury call-ups, etc... please redo your research...

1. Unless you are referring to a #17 overall team (barely miss the playoffs) as stated above, this would still equal a tank the season mentality for #1 2. 50% break is WAY too drastic and covers WAY too many players and would still lead to uneven teams and would also further hurt weaker market teams, because, for them, it's not about actual cap number, it's about ACTUAL salary number... also, look at the uneven salaries this would equate to... under this scenario, the Wings would only have an actual salary cap hit of around 41m - That would leave them almost 18 million in cap space... that's a Kovalchuk, a Paul Martin AND another 3m+ player... which now leads to more of our roster players getting cut and back into the pool... this also hurts free agency and essentially locks a player to a team, because he will never be able to make anywhere near the same elsewhere and then some players are stuck in a purgatory of hockey hell, when all they want is a chance to win, without taking dirt to play elsewhere... once again - http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php/topic/65289-luxury-tax-system 3. I agree. 4. That is way too much expansion... again... and would lead to watered down talent. If ANYTHING, you re-locate 2 teams and add 2 (Pho back to Winnipeg, Florida to Quebec, expansion team in KC and expansion team in one of the northern areas west of the great lakes(Wisconsin, North Dakota, etc) - yes, I know North Dakota sounds crazy, but it would be their ONLY major sports franchise and they actually care about hockey there... I think it would prosper, as long as it was built in a high traffic area where surrounding cities would have access as well...

You had me more or less until the part in bold... this is not an option. period. - if Draper retired, we'd still be responsible for his cap hit (35+ signing) AND we'd be down a roster player, that's lose-lose.

Don't forget the physicality and mean streak... hopefully some of that rubs off as well...

Part of the solution: http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php/topic/65289-luxury-tax-system Also, with the increased speed and physicality in today's game, roster sizes should be expanded to at least 24(I would even make an argument for 25), with a minimum roster size being raised to 22... then raise the salary cap ceiling the subsequent 500k, or 1 million or so to accommodate 1 or 2 more league min contracts... I'm thoroughly convinced this would drastically improve the league...