stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 If the NHL switched to a soft cap situation like the NBA, it would benefit everyone... Set a hard cap floor and a soft cap ceiling, allowing teams to exceed the salary cap, but then being required to pay a luxury tax to the league, which would then be redistributed to the other 29 teams around the league as revenue sharing. This would allow larger markets to keep players THEY develop, plus a few free-agents and would give some of those smaller market teams some MUCH needed revenue... Seems so obvious, it will never happen, because Bettman is a f***tard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Konnan511 1,736 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 If the NHL switched to a soft cap situation like the NBA, it would benefit everyone... Set a hard cap floor and a soft cap ceiling, allowing teams to exceed the salary cap, but then being required to pay a luxury tax to the league, which would then be redistributed to the other 29 teams around the league as revenue sharing. This would allow larger markets to keep players THEY develop, plus a few free-agents and would give some of those smaller market teams some MUCH needed revenue... Seems so obvious, it will never happen, because Bettman is a f***tard I agree with a soft cap fully. Only thing you are wrong about is that last sentence which is so ignorant I can't even begin to tell you, so I'll leave it at, Bettman has nothing to do with the cap. Any changes go through the board of goveners, general managers, owners and the players. Monkey see, monkey do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lets go pavel 2 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Not going to happen. A soft cap doesn't do anything, teams who are willing to spend over the limit have no issue paying the luxury tax, and the tax isn't enough to help the poorer teams be able to afford the same kind of talent. It has been suggested that players who play for the team that drafted them should only have a portion of their salary count towards the cap, and this I think would be more likely to happen. Every team would potentially benefit equally (depending on their ability to scout and draft, obviously) and it would make it easier to keep the home-grown talent. This I would be in favor of ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Well, I still think some teams should be rescinded, and go back to larger divisions, but a cap system is also essential if one expects all teams to be able to compete equally. While, pre-hard cap era, low budget teams occasionally performed great it wasn't enough for even them, no less the teams that went nowhere and couldn't afford big name players, to get them out of this financial hole they were in trying to compete with other teams spending-wise. A soft cap would only bring back this problem, smaller teams who even get decent crowds (yet not have such an extravagant budget) would lose their big name players and it all starts again where they have to spend more to compete and screw themselves financially again and we're back to the same problem pre-cap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DatsMyWings13 4 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 I would be in favor of a soft cap or reducing the cap hit of players you draft/develop. I think that something should be done either way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DatsMyWings13 4 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Well, I still think some teams should be rescinded, and go back to larger divisions, but a cap system is also essential if one expects all teams to be able to compete equally. While, pre-hard cap era, low budget teams occasionally performed great it wasn't enough for even them, no less the teams that went nowhere and couldn't afford big name players, to get them out of this financial hole they were in trying to compete with other teams spending-wise. A soft cap would only bring back this problem, smaller teams who even get decent crowds (yet not have such an extravagant budget) would lose their big name players and it all starts again where they have to spend more to compete and screw themselves financially again and we're back to the same problem pre-cap. Seems to me certain teams are having financial problems even with a hard cap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blueliner 69 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 I think there should be a soft cap, but then a hard cap on top of that. For instance, a soft cap a 57 million and a team can pay a tax up to a hard cap like 62 million. I also like the suggestion of being able to keep your drafted players. Especially with all the talent coming these days. A soft cap alone is like no cap at all. It will be just like the Yankees and baseball. Last year, the Yankees paid more in luxary taxes than the Marlins had on their entire payroll. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canadian_Yzerman_Fan 7 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 you could also throw in the idea of a rule that i think mls has where every team is allowed to pay one player whatever they want and have it not count against the cap (so every team's highest paid guy just goes off the books)... maybe they could implement this in the case of the salary cap lowering to help teams cope (though it's not going to happen... it's just amusing to think about) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Seems to me certain teams are having financial problems even with a hard cap. If those teams are like Anaheim and Nashville (I'd rather see articles/numbers showing me their financial troubles to believe it) those would be the teams I suggested should be rescinded from the league. Most if not all lower budget teams are doing better under the cap not only because the ceiling has dropped and they can now afford decent players, but because of the revenue sharing deal, something that's entirely pointless with no cap and even a luxury tax cap a la MLB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) When you say "everyone wins", you really mean "the rich teams win" right? Edit: and the players Edited March 19, 2009 by toby91_ca Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
finalfilppula 2 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 we would quickly revert to the old days. those who used to spend a lot wouldn't mind spending moar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lets go pavel 2 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Seems to me certain teams are having financial problems even with a hard cap. The cap isn't designed to prevent teams from having financial problems, it's designed to keep them (mostly) competitive without having to compete financially with the richer teams. Without a cap teams either spend more than they should to field a competitive team, or they spend what they can afford and hope for a miracle or risk losing their fanbase. The cap doesn't guarantee a profit, but it should help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b.shanafan14 733 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 I like the idea of a soft cap. Anything that allows teams to keep the players they draft and develop and creates more revenue to be shared by the poorer teams is a win-win to me. But then again, I have zero decision making power in the NHL. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) When you say "everyone wins", you really mean "the rich teams win" right? Edit: and the players I have a feeling it has something to do with some fans wanting to be able to afford Hossa, Franzen, Luongo, and pretty much any other player the Wings want to buy or trade for, since the Wings can afford to spend some 20-40 million more than the current cap. Edited March 19, 2009 by Shoreline Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MacK_Attack 108 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 The NHL sacrificed a season to get a hard cap, I doubt they'll give it up or make any major changes to it after one CBA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DatsMyWings13 4 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) I have a feeling it has something to do with some fans wanting to be able to afford Hossa, Franzen, Luongo, and pretty much any other player the Wings want to buy or trade for, since the Wings can afford to spend some 20-40 million more than the current cap. That's right you don't want to keep Hossa or Franzen or get a better goaltender. Do you think we should be disciplined for drafting well and being a club players like to play for? Edited March 19, 2009 by DatsMyWings13 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted March 19, 2009 That's right you don't want to keep hoss or franzen or get a better goaltender. Do you think we should be disciplined for drafting well and being a club players like to play for? What do you mean disciplined? The Wings aren't exactly doing poorly under a hard cap, and it's due to drafting and strategic free agency signings. The only thing left to sell in your post is simply the Wings spending as much as they want and signing whoever they want, which obviously isn't a solution at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wombat 26 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Soft or hard cap, cap or no cap, it is still the teams that draft and develop players the best that win. Since the Yankees' exploded their salaries going after pricey FA, how many championships have they won? Zero. Those 90's Yankees teams were built mostly from within with some nicely placed trades and FA acquisitions. The Wings win with mostly home grown talent and a couple nice trades/FA signings. The Rangers in pre-cap days just bought every player they could and did not develop within. They missed the playoffs with high payrolls! It really does not matter if there is a cap or not for rich teams... teams that draft poorly but can buy a lot of FA's will not succeed and have very rarely ever succeeded in North American sports. Teams that have a ton of money but still develop from within like the Wings will win. What a cap does though is help the poorer teams compete for some FA signings. A poorer revenue team that drafts well and develops well now has the wherewithal to sign that ONE free agent to put them over the top, or make that ONE trade for a guy to do the same. In an uncapped sport, the big teams can horde all the big FA and make all the big trades because they can afford to. In a capped sport, every team has a chance to make that move. I like the cap even if it costs the Wings a guy or two some years. They Wings will keep winning as long as they sign reasonable contracts and develop their own talent. When they stop doing that, they stop winning, no matter how much money they throw at the team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DatsMyWings13 4 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 What do you mean disciplined? The Wings aren't exactly doing poorly under a hard cap, and it's due to drafting and strategic free agency signings. The only thing left to sell in your post is simply the Wings spending as much as they want and signing whoever they want, which obviously isn't a solution at all. Well you act as though the fans shouldn't want the wings to resign Franzen or Hossa, I'm fine with the cap and I wouldn't mind if they changed it to a soft cap or allowed you to resign players you drafted for a slightly lower cap hit. I can't see why you're against it. I'm don't want to see the cap go down. But I guess you like it the way it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dimaline312000 51 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 That's a great idea I'd love to see that. I don't think I ever will but it would be very cool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Soft or hard cap, cap or no cap, it is still the teams that draft and develop players the best that win. Since the Yankees' exploded their salaries going after pricey FA, how many championships have they won? Zero. Those 90's Yankees teams were built mostly from within with some nicely placed trades and FA acquisitions. The Wings win with mostly home grown talent and a couple nice trades/FA signings. The Rangers in pre-cap days just bought every player they could and did not develop within. They missed the playoffs with high payrolls! It really does not matter if there is a cap or not for rich teams... teams that draft poorly but can buy a lot of FA's will not succeed and have very rarely ever succeeded in North American sports. Teams that have a ton of money but still develop from within like the Wings will win. What a cap does though is help the poorer teams compete for some FA signings. A poorer revenue team that drafts well and develops well now has the wherewithal to sign that ONE free agent to put them over the top, or make that ONE trade for a guy to do the same. In an uncapped sport, the big teams can horde all the big FA and make all the big trades because they can afford to. In a capped sport, every team has a chance to make that move. I like the cap even if it costs the Wings a guy or two some years. They Wings will keep winning as long as they sign reasonable contracts and develop their own talent. When they stop doing that, they stop winning, no matter how much money they throw at the team. Indeed, and to add to that great post, the most underestimated benefit is players like Guerin, Yashin, or Jagr (as past examples), no longer artificially inflating salaries and contributing to this salary mess that occurred pre-cap. Well you act as though the fans shouldn't want the wings to resign Franzen or Hossa, I'm fine with the cap and I wouldn't mind if they changed it to a soft cap or allowed you to resign players you drafted for a slightly lower cap hit. I can't see why you're against it. I'm don't want to see the cap go down. But I guess you like it the way it is. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture, rather than taking the stance that the Wings should do it for the sake of me wanting players like Hossa or Luongo. You're not taking into account what this would do to most other teams that are not the Red Wings. This team isn't even hurting at all from a hard cap, so what's the problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DatsMyWings13 4 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Indeed, and to add to that great post, the most underestimated benefit is players like Guerin, Yashin, or Jagr (as past examples), no longer artificially inflating salaries and contributing to this salary mess that occurred pre-cap. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture, rather than taking the stance that the Wings should do it for the sake of me wanting players like Hossa or Luongo. You're not taking into account what this would do to most other teams that are not the Red Wings. This team isn't even hurting at all from a hard cap, so what's the problem? No problem, I'll deal with it remaining the same as that is what is likely to happen but there is no harm in wishing that you could keep home grown talent at a smaller cap hit. Even if there was a soft cap there is no guarantee teams would want to break it depending on the penalty that would be assessed. I still think they shouldn't have the cap go down though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wombat 26 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Indeed, and to add to that great post, the most underestimated benefit is players like Guerin, Yashin, or Jagr (as past examples), no longer artificially inflating salaries and contributing to this salary mess that occurred pre-cap. For the most part yes, but you still get examples like the 3 former Sabres (Drury, Briere, and Campbell) that are being vastly overpaid with huge contracts. Each are good players but not worth these salaries. To me, it still comes down to organ-EYE-zations that develop well from within and sign reasonable contracts to players (both home grown and acquired) will still succeed. That is why I've been worried about a long-term Hossa contract hurting the Wings because unless it's a super paycut, it just doesn't seem to be a reasonable thing to do within the current salary structure of the team. The whole thread to me goes to Detroit fans wanting to still be able to spend 3 times as much as other teams to ice another team with "Nine future Hall of Famers" on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DatsMyWings13 4 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 For the most part yes, but you still get examples like the 3 former Sabres (Drury, Briere, and Campbell) that are being vastly overpaid with huge contracts. Each are good players but not worth these salaries. To me, it still comes down to organ-EYE-zations that develop well from within and sign reasonable contracts to players (both home grown and acquired) will still succeed. That is why I've been worried about a long-term Hossa contract hurting the Wings because unless it's a super paycut, it just doesn't seem to be a reasonable thing to do within the current salary structure of the team. The whole thread to me goes to Detroit fans wanting to still be able to spend 3 times as much as other teams to ice another team with "Nine future Hall of Famers" on it. Were you bitching about this in the late 90's? You don't think teams like Pittsburgh would like a soft cap. The Wings are not the only team that would benefit from something like that. But it's really a non point as it won't happen anyways. Fun to dream though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wombat 26 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Another thought came to mind... you must also remember that a sports league is dependent on the other teams to be able to put out a product. It is in the Wings best interests that a strong majority of other teams in the league are strong as it will drive up fan interest. It is not like a bunch of car dealerships in the same town that are trying to be the best and wouldn't mind if the other guys folded... sports leagues are cooperatives. In my mind, it behooves the Wings to have everyone be limited in spending so that everyone gets a chance to compete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
