NHL should switch to a "Soft Cap"

[Z and D for the C 712]

If you do not like "what makes sense", you're living very "retarded" life.

Couldn't resist, little pun

There is no pun, you're just being an *******.

Yes, it makes logical sense, no one is saying it doesn't. But I just don't see how the cap dropping with revenue helps anyone. Al it does it hurt teams that are cap compliant.

Maybe at the least you shouldn't have to dump players if you're over the cap, but you you must be cap-compliant otherwise when signing contracts.

[Z and D for the C 712]

It's going to be very interesting to see how teams get under the cap in 2010/11. I think you'll see a lot of good players forced to stick it out in the AHL, as well as a lot of re-entry waiver action. But hey, there's bound to be a price to pay when you're a wreckless as some GM's have been regarding free agency these last couple summers.

So because we're up against the cap that means Ken holland is reckless with FA signings? Maybe the new CBA shouldn't allow multi year contracts.

[Guest Shoreline]

Well it's a cap, you don't have to spend all of the money. If your revenue is down and you can't afford to spend the same as last year you have a choice to off load some of the salary so long as you stay above the floor.

The cap going down just complicates things, as you can not plan for the long term. I don't know of any other sport that has a salary cap that goes down.

Shoreline I should of know you would take this as an opportunity to ***** about how people spend their money and live off of credit. Don't you get enough of that in the political forum?

Comparing pro sports to normal working folks is like comparing Apples and Oranges, it just not the same.

Of course it was apples and oranges. Evidently a joke goes over your head. Way to go.

But you entirely overlook the fact that NHL franchises can't survive spending $15 - $25 million a season. They get no exposure, no chance to even pay off developing superstars who will rightfully demand a decent salary, and exposure is everything, as mentioned in my very previous post to this one. So the player salaries had to go down to a reasonable level for most franchises, as they did for the cap, and add revenue sharing on top of it to increase parity and competitiveness. NHL revenue and team revenues are tied together, so the ceiling for player salaries and the cap for team salaries goes up and down respectively based on NHL revenue. Nextly, NHL franchises could not afford competing with the Wings 60 - 80 million dollar spending sprees (a little more for the Rangers) as they would go down in a matter of a few years.

This hard cap really is the only way the league survives. So there's no sense in living in one's own world of idealism about everything.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Shoreline

[MacK_Attack 108]

So because we're up against the cap that means Ken holland is reckless with FA signings? Maybe the new CBA shouldn't allow multi year contracts.

Nope, I said some GM's, not all of them. It just means he has lousy luck when it comes to when his top players (read Zetterberg, Franzen etc.) came up for their big contracts. Detroit's not in the trouble that a team like Philly or the Rangers will be in. Philly already has $53.9 million committed to next season, and $43 million to nine players in 2010/11.

It's going to completely reverse the tables in 2010. The teams with lots of cap space are going to get free agents dirt cheap and will be able to essentially buy players off of other teams who need to cut their cap numbers.

The next CBA will definitely restrict contract terms, I have no doubt about that.

Edited March 19, 2009 by MacK_Attack

[Guest Shoreline]

The next CBA will definitely restrict contract terms, I have no doubt about that.

Indeed. Wonder what fuss the PA will make over this one too though.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Indeed. Wonder what fuss the PA will make over this one too though.

Perhaps their members who will get shafted this summer and next (when they have to take cheap, short contracts) will force them to give a bit on the contract length issue. Maybe it will have to be a trade-off....I know the league wants to have some sort of non-guaranteed contracts, but maybe they compromise somewhere in there and they restrict contract length at the expense of keeping guaranteed contracts.

It'll be Paul Kelly's first CBA, so I'm sure he'll have to put up a fight.

[talex 1]

Cap or no Cap has been argued Ad nauseam, but here goes my 2 cents worth...

The NHL wants parity, it wants small markets to compete with large markets, it seems to be getting what it wanted.

The Cap dropping is stupid since teams do not have to spend the cap and it forces teams to have to play with poltics they should not have to, a hard cap is enough, a fluctuating cap forces teams willing to spend near the cap to make decisions on guess work which is a game that should not have to be played and only serves to punish successful markets, the hard cap should be enough for this and there is no reason why a rule could not be put into place to protect or not count against a team that spends it's cap dollars in the event the cap drops, in other words if you sign all your players at cap level x and a year later the cap drops to y then you get an adjustment and future signings would have to comply with cap y, not rocket science.

The NHL will never see all the markets they have opened be profitable, there will always be markets that will drag on the league which is s a shame because the obvious fix is to not force the product into markets that cannot support it and the hard cap only marginally helps those somewhere in the middle, the crappy markets still only support crappt teams for the most part or they become 1 hit wonders and any excitment quickly goes away and they struggle again, all the while weakoning the stronger markets, take for example the empty seats at the joe topic that seems to pop-up on here every other day... if the wings could spend what they want, the joe would be packed, whether the issue is not enough grit, to many euro guys... you name it, the issue could be rectified and the joe packed night in and night out, but under the cap these changes are not possible, thus although maybe not drastically, the hard cap does hurt large market teams, the luxury tax implemented properly could potentially resolve both issues, but it will not happen.

I agree with the others about the home grown talent as being a good solution, players drafted and matured by an organization should get some kind of a lesser cap hit in % over FA, this would make the organization have to be competitive not just financially and on the ice, but in all aspects of team management, but this would possibly degrade that all important parity...

face it, at some point after enough time all teams will be equally mediocre under the cap, it is the design... so the NHL will gain some fans in weak markets and loose some in strong markets, it is what they wanted and eventually it is what they will get...

[DatsMyWings13 4]

Of course it was apples and oranges. Evidently a joke goes over your head. Way to go.

But you entirely overlook the fact that NHL franchises can't survive spending $15 - $25 million a season. They get no exposure, no chance to even pay off developing superstars who will rightfully demand a decent salary, and exposure is everything, as mentioned in my very previous post to this one. So the player salaries had to go down to a reasonable level for most franchises, as they did for the cap, and add revenue sharing on top of it to increase parity and competitiveness. NHL revenue and team revenues are tied together, so the ceiling for player salaries and the cap for team salaries goes up and down respectively based on NHL revenue. Nextly, NHL franchises could not afford competing with the Wings 60 - 80 million dollar spending sprees (a little more for the Rangers) as they would go down in a matter of a few years.

This hard cap really is the only way the league survives. So there's no sense in living in one's own world of idealism about everything.

You only read what you want to read. I already said I have no problem with the cap the way it is and that I'm all for all teams being competitive. I also said that it is nice to imagine what if scenarios but you clearly only read the things that help spur an argument because that's all you do in most threads.

Just because some one carries an opinion other than yours doesn't always mean they are wrong.

As for your "joke", I might of taken as one if you didn't spend so much time preaching to everyone about fiscal responsibility and the evil of credit.(which I don't disagree with you on it just gets old hearing it all the time)

[DatsMyWings13 4]

They usually don't so long as the economy and the league are healthy. The NFL has a hard cap tied to revenue, and it remains to be seen whether they will be affected adversely. The NBA has a soft cap tied to revenues, and already there are signs of teams cutting salaries and trying to save. The cap in both sports may well drop in 2010, just as is predicted with the NHL.

You're right, comparing normal folks to sports is not the same, but some of the same principals of fiscal reponsibility apply.

Fair enough.

Suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on how the cap should work.

[Guest Shoreline]

Perhaps their members who will get shafted this summer and next (when they have to take cheap, short contracts) will force them to give a bit on the contract length issue. Maybe it will have to be a trade-off....I know the league wants to have some sort of non-guaranteed contracts, but maybe they compromise somewhere in there and they restrict contract length at the expense of keeping guaranteed contracts.

It'll be Paul Kelly's first CBA, so I'm sure he'll have to put up a fight.

It would seem restricting contract lengths is the compromise, as "non guaranteed contracts" is way out of the PA's league and surely nowhere close to where they will want to go. I almost laughed when I read those three words in quotes.

[Konnan511 1,736]

I would still like an NBA soft Cap. For everyone who wants to know exactly what it is, this is it:

1) The NBA's salary cap is calculated as a percentage of the league's revenues.

2) Teams are allowed to exceed the cap number in order to retain the rights to a player who has already been on the team aka the "Larry Bird Rule"

The reason the NBA let's people re-sign players who played for them is to build a brand recognition, as for them at least, it has nothing to do with drafting or team loyalty.

The reason this approach would be useful for the NHL would help in a few ways:

1) Trade deadline deals would see bigger name players being moved as the players new team would now be allowed to sign that player for more and still be allowed to go over the cap, so it's more incentive for those blockbuster deals.

2) It'll reward teams for being able to draft well.

3) It'll help make the league even more competitive. Think about PHX and CLB being able to hold on to all their drafted players, they'd be highly highly competitive for a long time, same goes with the Lighting, They still might have Brad Richards and think of all the new kids they have coming up that they'd be able to keep.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

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...

In the example of "revenue sharing" in MLB, it's not written anywhere what the "small market" teams are supposed to do with the money that they receive. You would assume they would take most of that money and make their organization better; through free agency, trades, etc. But there are still teams that who knows where their cut goes but it sure isn't going towards putting a better product on the field for the fans who are paying the contracts. This system allows some owners to say "mediocre is fine, can I have some money, please".

[chrisdetroit 189]

What doesn't make sense about it? It's like tying how much you spend on groceries to how much you earn each month. If your income drops, aren't you going to try to spend a little less at the grocery store?

(edit: typo)

Unless you're a Democrat then you just borrow more from your granchildren and increase the spending...

Sorry, couldn't resist

[daniel1 32]

I would like to see a "player salary cap" rather than a team cap. The premise being that there would be a maximum that you could pay a player set at a much lower rate than it currently is. I would suggest 5 million. Honestly, is there anyone who should be earning more than 5 million dollars a year? This would prevent the bidding war that sometimes prevents small market teams from acquiring top level players. If all anyone could make was 5m/yr then maybe the smaller market teams wouldn't lose their top players to the lure of massive contracts (Vancouver's offer of 10/mil yr for Sundin) elsewhere.

There wouldn't need to be a limit as to how many 5 million dollar players a team could have on it's roster because the player (if good enough) could likely get 5m/yr on any team so money would not be the deciding factor in his decision on where to sign. This would reward organizations that are well run, successful and offer a great chance at winning.

In this type of scenario we probably would have no more than four 5/mil a year guys (Dats, Z, Lids, Hossa) and a few 3-4m/yr guys like Franzen, Cleary, Kronner, Flip, Huds) so the overall spending limit would likely decrease for each team, allowing for smaller market teams to sign whoever they can convince without the "can't afford them" barrier. Teams would have to make sure they have their house in order: owner who treats the players right, GM who builds a good team, coach who can actually coach and knows enough about the game to use the players effectively.

Set the 5m/yr player cap now and raise/lower it based on the actual % that revenues grow/decline as to how much a maximum salary can be for that year. I bet the GM's would love this but try getting all those 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 mil a year players to take a pay cut, ha!

Edited March 19, 2009 by daniel1

[hokike 1]

forget "player's cap" it would remove one of motivations to play better every day.

To soft cap proponents: reality is than in the most important consuming market - USA- is NHL very marginal league and therefore using NBA as an example (salary issues etc) do not work.

[2probert4 8]

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.

Bettman wont drop any teams willingly, it would mean he would have to admit he was wrong. He'll just make the league continue to prop up one that are hurting financially, as hes done with Phoenix for most of this season and who knows how long prior to this year. Guy has no clue.

[2probert4 8]

In the example of "revenue sharing" in MLB, it's not written anywhere what the "small market" teams are supposed to do with the money that they receive. You would assume they would take most of that money and make their organization better; through free agency, trades, etc. But there are still teams that who knows where their cut goes but it sure isn't going towards putting a better product on the field for the fans who are paying the contracts. This system allows some owners to say "mediocre is fine, can I have some money, please".

MLB, NFL and the NBA have HUGE tv contracts which pay the majorities of their team salary.

[TheOwl 77]

I like the Salary Cap, it's the best thing the NHL has ever done. And any sport that doesn't have a salary cap is not worth watching at all.

The only problems I have are, if the cap decreases, the players salaries should decrease accordingly, through some fancy percentage. So if the cap goes down 10%, players salaries decrease 10%. No way should a team have to un-load salary from one season to another because of the cap decreasing. My second problem is, a lot of players make too much money. For example, Hossa signing for 7.45 million is not taking a discount, that's an insane amount of money, he's not doing Detroit any favors, even at 6 million it would be too high.

Salaries are too high, should be a cap at 6 million, and then instead the players get bonuses based on performance. No person deserves to be making 8 million dollars to play a sport.

[MacK_Attack 108]

The only problems I have are, if the cap decreases, the players salaries should decrease accordingly, through some fancy percentage. So if the cap goes down 10%, players salaries decrease 10%. No way should a team have to un-load salary from one season to another because of the cap decreasing.

Not a chance that will happen because the players will want their salaries to go up accordingly every time the cap goes up and the owners won't do that.

There's no way the players would agree to having their salaries drop if the cap goes down, but stay the same if the cap goes up.

That's just a tug-o-war that neither side would win.

[lets go pavel 2]

Not a chance that will happen because the players will want their salaries to go up accordingly every time the cap goes up and the owners won't do that.

There's no way the players would agree to having their salaries drop if the cap goes down, but stay the same if the cap goes up.

That's just a tug-o-war that neither side would win.

True, but it is an interesting idea ... instead of contracts that specify a dollar amount, the contracts could be for a % of the cap. Hank and Pavel get 11%, Holmstom 5%, etc ... obviously the team has to be under 100%. Of course then the big issue would become how the cap is calculated ...