why can't the NHL have a salary cap like baseball?

[Wombat 26]

But.. if we don't keep Hossa we will probably be able to keep all our "homegrown" players, like Franzen.

I think we are all just really spoiled and don't like the thought of possibly having to give up a great player.

I'm sure the cap has it's share of problems, but overall I think the NHL is much, much more interesting now than it was before.

The battle for the playoff spots that we're starting to see now is almost as interesting to me as the playoffs itself.

I completely agree. There are improvements needed to the whole cap situation but it's better to have it than to not have it like earlier. This only proves that the Wings are a great organization because they can win (and win consistently year in/out) without the "they spend more money than everyone" excuse.

[b.shanafan14 733]

I'd rather the NHL do it like this, and I was curious to see what you guys thought. A guy on Buccigross's column suggested putting a clause in the CBA by which a team who signs a player they drafted signs to an extension when they become a UFA will only have a certain percentage of their salary go towards the cap. His point being that the cap was supposed to stop crazy free agent spending, now it just seems like teams who draft well are getting screwed. Here's the letter:

I think it's brilliant.

Thats been my argument for a while too, good call. The CBA was meant to stop deals like say Mats Sundin $10mil/season kind of deals, but it hasn't. It really is punishing teams like the Wings who draft well on top of being free agent destinations, and does nothing for non-destinations like Florida and NYI.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

why can't the NHL have a salary cap like baseball? then we could pay luxury taxes just like the yankees if Mr. I wanted to, and have the players we want. big teams can not help that they have the $$$ while teams are giving big contracts just to be at or barely over the floor.

mainly because the MLB's cap is a joke and the NHL couldn't survive as a league without a strict cap.

[mjlegend 155]

Count me in for this lower-cap-hit-for-drafted-players idea, too. Even if this would actually help a team like Pittsburgh who sucked for so long and got high draft picks.

[Blueliner 69]

It's not fair for a team like Detroit to have try so hard to stay under while teams like Nashville and Columbus are way below it. I believe Columbus is like $12 million under the cap. Why don't they go out and get a Marian Hossa or Henrik Zetterberg? That's why the cap is in place. So Other teams have the chance to get these players. Maybe these teams should invest money in good players to get more people in the seats. Not too many people will pay money to watch NYI play Tampa.

[ComradeWasabi 109]

I didn't even know baseball HAD a salary cap (shows what I know). But when I see one pitcher in a rotation getting signed for $12 million a year, the salary cap is clearly not especially effective.

[#19forPresident! 1]

why can't the NHL have a salary cap like baseball?

Because the baseball salary cap is a joke. If anything baseball needs desperately to adopt hockey's salary cap system. Baseballs system isn't even a cap at all, it's "spend as much as you want and we'll call some of it taxes" not a salary. They're still using money to gain the advantage, not their talent, and that defeats the purpose of a cap in the first place.

Personally I enjoy watching us beat teams into the ground when we're on the same financial playing field. It's easy to buy playoff appearances, just ask the Steinbrenners. Earning them on the other hand actually means something. Ken Holland and company are what makes us so good, not Mr. I's bank account.

[FLWINGSFAN4013 5]

in all i meant that the nhl should have a luxury tax on teams who are willing to go x amount over the salary cap

Edited April 23, 2009 by FLWINGSFAN4013

[Guest Shoreline]

A luxury tax is a joke. And so is the MLB. The reason Wings fans want it (or no cap at all) instead of a hard cap is obvious -- they want to keep all their superstars.

Let it go already. The cap is here to stay.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Shoreline

[Z and D for the C 712]

who cares if it is even....its a business and whoever has the best product so be it.....just because you have the best players on paper doesn't guarantee a championship

You're right, it is a business. And the purpose of a business is to make money, not win trophies. The cap is designed to help teams make money.

What I would like to see if a soft cap, and then a hard cap 6 or 7 million higher than that. That way teams can go over the soft cap but pay a luxery tax which get distributed among teams to help in revenue.

[TheOwl 77]

Personally the salary cap is the best thing the NHL ever did. But I think it's nonsensical to have these long term guaranteed contracts for tens of millions of dollars. A solution to this could perhaps be using more bonuses, like if your team wins the Presidents trophy, or the Cup, or makes it to the finals. For a team like Detroit, this would encourage players to sign for less, since they'll make big bucks if they PERFORM. Phaneuf is a perfect example, great rookie year, signs big big contract, now he's guaranteed his money, he has nothing to play for really.

Players make too much money. It would be a great step in the right direction if players had more incentive to play well, with smaller contracts and bonuses that didn't count against the cap.

The cap will never drop down significantly, imagine if the cap went down to 46 million. How would any team adjust to that? All the rookies and newer players would get screwed. Like Pittsburgh, they have almost 30 million tied up in 5 players, how can you fill a 20 man roster with 16 million? The NHL should adjust the salaries, so if the cap goes down 20%, players still get paid what they were guaranteed, but their cap hit goes down in a similar fashion.

In a world with a static cap, you can't have all these guaranteed contracts. Bonuses that don't count against the cap, would encourage players to play better as a team as they get more money, but allows more discounts, especially for the top tier teams.

[Guest Shoreline]

You're right, it is a business. And the purpose of a business is to make money, not win trophies. The cap is designed to help teams make money.

What I would like to see if a soft cap, and then a hard cap 6 or 7 million higher than that. That way teams can go over the soft cap but pay a luxery tax which get distributed among teams to help in revenue.

The cap is designed to make the league (and as many teams as possible) merely profitable. Them maximizing their profits in another way is their own deal. Now, as for championships, those extra 8-16 home playoff games (those games being the equivalent of 20-40% of their home regular season games, except higher ticket prices and more likely to be sold out), brings in a helluva lot of revenue. It also puts butts in seats (with the Wings/Devils being the only recent exceptions) during the following season, which means more profit the next season (and possibly after that, as well). This reason alone is why championships are the most profitable thing for a team.

Again, it's obvious Wings fans want this due to the fact that most likely Hossa will not re-sign unless it's for a similar minimum-like salary Kariya did for the Avs some several years back, if the Wings can even afford that.

[softshoes 83]

Technically the cap is great for the Wings, we have great talent willing to work with management to circumvent the cap. Players like to play here and will play for less than somewhere else.

You can say we are operating within the rules but truth be told we are giving Bettman and the cap the finger. If we lose Hossa it will suck but we will be fine w/o him.

[FLWINGSFAN4013 5]

just bc you have all the stars does not mean you will win it all. its the beginning of the baseball season and the marlins are behind in many millions of spending than the yankees....its about keeping team chemistry

[T.OWingsFan 7]

The quickest and easiest way to keep "parity" (whatever this means, as it seems that these small market teams still can't hack it anyhow) and keep the existing salary cap is simply to institute the franchise player rule.

Whereby a team gets to keep 1 of its players' salary off the books as a franchise player. This will allow every team to hold on to that 1 indispensible piece without it counting against the cap.

[mjlegend 155]

Kenny's signings have made me change a bit of my stance on this. In a non cap/luxury tax world, do we get Zetterberg and Franzen for these long-term brilliant discounts? I don't think so.

It's probably a good thing for the competitive balance of the league (or at least the appearance of it) that we don't get everything we want.

[Jamaica Jon 1]

The MLB's salary cap prevents parity from occurring, which is what the league hopes will stimulate failing markets. The idea is, if there team has a better chance of making it to the playoffs, more people might be interested in paying attention to a more successful team. As long as Holland stays ahead of the curve I can't really complain with the cap. A lot of me thinks it is a good idea, but I would also like to see something implemented where drafted and developed players only count 50% towards the cap or something similar. This way the playing field is still evened, and it is also able to reward organizations for their investment in behind-the-scenes folks. This may also lead to a greater interest in minor league hockey (although doubtful).

PREVENTS parity? Try telling that to the Rays, Marlins, Pirates, Rockies, and Diamondbacks. And also to the Yankees, Tigers and Mets on the other end... none of which have won a World Series since 2000.

Not that I think the soft-cap structure would work in the NHL, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it PREVENTS parity, when there is currently relative-parity in MLB. Sure year-to-year there are bad teams that just so happen to have low payroll... but you also get teams like the Marlins, who prove that in any given year a team can come out of nowhere and win the World Series. You get year-to-year bad teams in EVERY sport, regardless of hard cap vs. soft cap. Look at the Detroit Lions and the Charlotte Bobcats.

[Shaman 713]

I would just want a soft cap instead of a hard cap, if you exceed, you have to pay a % to the league which is given to other teams, this way, it makes it more business like, if you want to go over the cap, you pay the price, but, if your team is good enough, your investment if returned by a strong showing in the playoffs.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

A lot of me thinks it is a good idea, but I would also like to see something implemented where drafted and developed players only count 50% towards the cap or something similar. This way the playing field is still evened, and it is also able to reward organizations for their investment in behind-the-scenes folks.

This.

I'd love to see something along those lines. Maybe not a direct 50% discount, but at least have the incentive there.

Maybe give teams a limited number of player discounts that can be applied to players that have been with that team from their rookie years onwards (so someone like Versteeg could get that treatment- his rookie year is in Chicago but he was drafted by Boston). What happens to a guy like Mats Sundin who wasn't drafted by the Leafs? He was their heart and soul for years, even if he was originally a Nordique.

Maybe give teams the option of having 3 home brewed players on the team that only partially count towards the cap? A team could appeal to the NHL head offices and make a case for players that they feel is a case where that sort of designation would be fitting (Draper for example). Exceptions could then be granted on merit (in other words- if Sundin still played for the Leafs they could appeal to the league asking to have his status moved into the discounted category).

I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I do know that this will likely be something GM's discuss with the league in the future. As it stands now there are a few young clubs that have a huge clusterf*** of paydays coming up for players they've developed and drafted. Chicago is one good example of that- they'll implode in 5 years time if something along these lines isn't instituted- too many of their players entered the league as stars/semi-stars all around the same time.