NHL should switch to a "Soft Cap"

[Guest Shoreline]

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.

Indeed. Teams will still pay for making stupid salary decisions, but there won't be an excuse now that players broke the bank as they did before. There's not only a team salary cap but a player salary ceiling. I mean, with those two things if a team still can't manage money, and it results in the team going down the s***ter, they don't deserve to be in the league.

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.

There would be no guarantee teams would want to break the current cap, because most teams can't afford to spend it now. However, regardless of that, teams like the Wings would break it, and that would be mostly the fault of the players who demand higher salaries above what teams that don't have such an extravagant budget can afford. What I'm interested in though is why home grown talent should come at a lesser cap hit. Isn't the idea when they get better to pay them more? The way it is now is either a player will, themselves, take one for the team and money won't be an issue, or money will be an issue and out they go. This same story will play out for Franzen and Hossa. If they favor money, they shouldn't be here anyways. This team is dedicated to success, not an arsenal of big name superstars.

[Z and D for the C 712]

I like the idea of a soft cap and then a hard cap above that. It let's teams that can afford to go higher to go higher but it doesn't eliminate the idea of a cap entirely.

I also don't think the cap should be able to do down.

[Wombat 26]

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!

Did I think it was fair that the Wings were able to spend 3 times as much as other teams? No, I did not. I was happy that the Wings would do whatever they could under the rules to keep a great team together. Overall, I would not oppose a soft cap system of some kind, but I don't mind the hard cap. It sucks sometimes, but it makes everyone more competitive IF they have the right front office to take advantage of the rules as they are. I am much more pleased when my team does well under a cap system than when they can just sign anyone they want... it adds that level of difficulty that I really appreciate.

My main point was just that smart teams do well no matter what rules there are on how much you can spend on players. Stupid teams will not do well.

[russianswede919293 95]

Three Words...Major League Baseball...

Luxury taxes means the teams with money spend so much that their luxury tax is the same as other teams payrolls and doesn't help distribute talent at all...

The hard cap is better in my opinion.

[DatsMyWings13 4]

Did I think it was fair that the Wings were able to spend 3 times as much as other teams? No, I did not. I was happy that the Wings would do whatever they could under the rules to keep a great team together. Overall, I would not oppose a soft cap system of some kind, but I don't mind the hard cap. It sucks sometimes, but it makes everyone more competitive IF they have the right front office to take advantage of the rules as they are. I am much more pleased when my team does well under a cap system than when they can just sign anyone they want... it adds that level of difficulty that I really appreciate.

My main point was just that smart teams do well no matter what rules there are on how much you can spend on players. Stupid teams will not do well.

I'm also fine with the cap as it is with the exception of it being able to go down, you shouldn't have to worry about that. I'm all for having other teams being competitive.

Just some fun what if scenarios that I'd be in favor of. The Wings will be fine either way, players like to play for this team.

[toby91_ca 620]

I still think they shouldn't have the cap go down though.

Can you help me understand how that makes any sense at all?

[DatsMyWings13 4]

Can you help me understand how that makes any sense at all?

Why does it make sense for the salary cap to drop?

[DatsMyWings13 4]

Can you help me understand how that makes any sense at all?

What other sport has a salary cap that drops?

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

I still think they shouldn't have the cap go down though.

This one is very simple. Cap is tied to the revenues the league brings in. Basically, less tickets sold - smaller cap. Makes sense to me.

[DatsMyWings13 4]

This one is very simple. Cap is tied to the revenues the league brings in. Basically, less tickets sold - smaller cap. Makes sense to me.

I understand that and I still don't like it.

[hokike 1]

I understand that and I still don't like it.

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

Couldn't resist, little pun

[DatsMyWings13 4]

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

Couldn't resist, little pun

I understand it's tied to the revenue, not that it makes sense. I still don't feel that the cap going down makes sense. As for your comment about me living a "retarded life" go Fu*k yourself!

[lets go pavel 2]

I understand it's tied to the revenue, not that it makes sense. I still don't feel that the cap going down makes sense. As for your comment about me living a "retarded life" go Fu*k yourself!

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)

Edited March 19, 2009 by lets go pavel

[hokike 1]

I understand it's tied to the revenue, not that it makes sense. I still don't feel that the cap going down makes sense. As for your comment about me living a "retarded life" go Fu*k yourself!

take it easy, red wings won yesterday!

[Guest Shoreline]

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 you're income drops, aren't you going to try to spend a little less at the grocery store?

Don't be surprised. In America these days we'll not only end up spending more even though the income drops, but after running out of cash we'll then whip out the credit card and spend money we don't have.

Edit: Is this not proof we NEED a salary cap?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Shoreline

[lets go pavel 2]

Don't be surprised. In America these days we'll not only end up spending more even though the income drops, but after running out of cash we'll then whip out the credit card and spend money we don't have.

Good point ... maybe the NHL should just get rid of the cap and start filling out the bailout applications instead!

[Guest Shoreline]

Good point ... maybe the NHL should just get rid of the cap and start filling out the bailout applications instead!

:rotflmao:

[Holmstrom96 347]

When you say "everyone wins", you really mean "the rich teams win" right?

Edit: and the players

No....

The non-rich teams get more money through revenue sharing because of the "luxury tax".

The great thing about the NHL is that the rules favor the home team. Home team gets last line change and doesn't have to put their stick down first. Combine that with having 20,000 refeerees cheering for you and that creates the situation where only two teams of thirty (Atlanta, Tampa Bay) have losing home records with ~70 games played. So for most teams in the NHL your team generally has a greater than 50% chance of pleasing folks who bought seats, even if you don't make the play-offs or come in last in most divisions.

[tino59 0]

Don't be surprised. In America these days we'll not only end up spending more even though the income drops, but after running out of cash we'll then whip out the credit card and spend money we don't have.

Edit: Is this not proof we NEED a salary cap?

I think what irritates people, myself included, is that I don't think my team should have to spend less because other teams aren't bringing in as much money causing the overall revenue levels to drop. If my neighbors income level drops, I don't have to spend less money if mine stays the same!

[lets go pavel 2]

I think what irritates people, myself included, is that I don't think my team should have to spend less because other teams aren't bringing in as much money causing the overall revenue levels to drop. If my neighbors income level drops, I don't have to spend less money if mine stays the same!

True, but what happens when your neighbor's lack of income means he stops taking care of his property? Now consider that the increased money you spend on your property makes his property look even worse. Multiply that by half of your neighbors, and you have a neighborhood with dropping property values. Like it or not, the huge discrepancy in income and spending can be detrimental to the health of the neighborhood, just as it can for the league.

(It's not the perfect analogy, but I think you get the point.)

[hokike 1]

Good point ... maybe the NHL should just get rid of the cap and start filling out the bailout applications instead!

no, no...bailot includes"buy america" clause and it would mean that Red winds should get rid of all "soft" euros and fill rosters with "hard" americans like um...Downey?

[Guest Shoreline]

I think what irritates people, myself included, is that I don't think my team should have to spend less because other teams aren't bringing in as much money causing the overall revenue levels to drop. If my neighbors income level drops, I don't have to spend less money if mine stays the same!

What I posted in your quote of me there was entirely tongue-in-cheek, but in all seriousness regarding the NHL, this philosophy won't work since they all have the same goal of generating as much revenue as possible. Allowing players to artificially raise the market value of individuals basically hurt the league and could have caused a large amount of teams to fold if it continued since their salaries were far above most team's threshold in terms of profitability. So a salary cap is entirely necessary for this league as it will go through hard times and needs salaries in line with keeping successful teams afloat. Now, there are a couple teams who will recklessly spend no matter what, and those team should be allowed to fail, and ironically they aren't really in hockey markets anyways. Edmonton IS a hockey market and they couldn't have realistically been expected to raise ticket prices to some ridiculous and unaffordable level just to play catch up with rich teams like the Wings, Stars, and Rangers. It's established that one or two big names players help marketing hence generates revenue in almost every circumstance (tickets, merchandise, ratings). By far most teams that were hurt by the old system are doing better by the salary cap, and teams like the Wings who were doing good pre-salary cap era are still doing alright. The same philosophy applies, that decent drafting, good system, and players who can turn a coach's plan into success and win consistently ultimately win championships.

[DatsMyWings13 4]

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)

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.

[lets go pavel 2]

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.

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.

[MacK_Attack 108]

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.

But it's a cap linked directly to revenues. If your revenue is down, they can't allow teams to spend above the percentage paid to the players. That violates the whole spirit of the agreement.

I don't buy the whole argument that you can't plan for the long term with a dropping cap. Teams need to be responsible with the terms they are handing out. The 7+ year contracts (for the most part) were done with very little long-term planning. You will likely see in the next CBA a restriction on the length of contracts.

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.