Biggest Gaffe in the new CBA

[Opie 308]

I like this for RFA's... And maybe something like 2 designated franchise players...

Also the NFL veterans deal where you can pay guys with over 10 years exp at almost double the cap hit with it only counting for league min.

I think it behooves the NHL to work out a system that helps keep players within the same organization... Keeping young talent and old fan favorites only helps build fan loyalty...

I like the bolded too!!!

Look at a guy like Lids, this allows the teams to keep their aging vets while being able to sign players in their prime!

[Wingseroo 0]

Part of the cap is in place to keep Canadian teams competitive with USA teams... I think we all know with taxes and everything else Toronto is the only team in Canada that can compare income wise with the high end USA franchises... Hockey fan base is still in Canada though... NHL overall makes a lot of its revenue share from Canada... The way NHL was going you were talking about a 12-16 team NHL with Toronto and maybe Montreal still left in Canada...

The fact that the Wings are one of the handful of teams that can outspend the cap in a major way is beside the point... While I might like to see some changes that help teams retain their own talent most of it leads down a slippery slope back to what amounts to an uncapped league again...

[stevkrause 1,247]

I think there'll always be a few teams like Detroit, NYR, Toronto, Philadelphia, and maybe Montreal who'll spend $$$ like drunken sailors on shore leave.

It's not so much the owners of the bottom feeders spending the $$$ via "revenue sharing" on players to improve their team as much as it must be frustrating for guys like Ilitch to hand over the extra $$$ for going over the "soft cap".

Does my point make any sense?

EDIT side note - Dunno if we can compare the NHL with the NBA/MLB/NFL considering any form of a cap; the other leagues get considerably larger amounts of revenue via their TV contracts which are then used to pay a large portion of their respective player salaries.

but this just further prooves the reason for this... it gives the owners the CHOICE... they don't have to go over and most won't want to spend the 100% luxury tax... it'd just be a nice way to keep your own guys...

let it only apply to homegrown guys and make it a 100% tax

IE. Cap is 57 mil - and you have 8 guys that you have home grown, and their total salaries equal 40 million (say 5 mil a guy, all home grown guys) then you can round out the rest of your roster and depending on which one you want (the 50% discount, or the 25%) you could chose to defer UP TO 20 million or UP TO 10 million of that salary (once again depending on which plan you want, the 50% discount, or the 25%) away from the cap space and in turn, you have to invest that exact amount back into league revenue sharing...

ALL it does, it strengthen the league.

[vangvace 12]

Just like to throw out there that the more rules and loopholes you put into the CBA the more possibility of the system getting abused in bad ways. Imo, the league is still growing into the hard cap and with the upper limit no longer growing by leaps and bounds you’ll see how well a team can draft, keep/cut talent, and bring in new players as necessary. Now, teams that bump against the ceiling knowing that next year it’s going to raise don’t have that luxury.

Giving home discounts to the cap hit would, imo, encourage teams to tank for a few years to attempt to stock up on talent with early draft picks and become a cup contender. Not really drafting well, but just hoping continuous top 5 picks will pan out. It’s not going to magically make teams put money into scouting and build (or get really lucky) from middle and late round picks.

Now let's glance at the other league's systems shall we...

NFL: Has a hard cap with large loopholes that are so far working due to a ridiculous amount of revenue. They're looking to be capless in 2010 and may have a strike/lock-out in 2011 due to labor issues. (player's salaries and medical benefits being to major sticking points)

NBA: Their soft cap hasn't really fixed anything. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. More and more teams are having financial issues as well.

MLB: Outside of Tampa Bay, it's largely a league of have and have-nots when it comes to money.

Oh... and when was the last time a team that loaded with FAs in the summer won the cup that season? Players moving from team to team became the inevitability of FA.

Edit: And the league already has revenue sharing in place and it isn't really helping clubs like Phoenix with it's debt.

Edited July 10, 2009 by vangvace

[Guest Shoreline]

Luxury tax system is so stupid I'd rather have no cap than that joke. However, the hard cap this league implements is a-ok, particularly after it closes a few loopholes our team has been one of the many teams to make prominent use of. Revenue sharing is ok, but letting teams FAIL or MOVE when they actually aren't sustainable is also a pretty good idea.

Ever since the new CBA has happened Wings fans have been against it because the Wings haven't been able to afford an assload of stars. Luxury tax or no tax are both horrible ideas for this league since even prominent teams that can spend a lot will spend themselves into bankruptcy. Sustainability of the league has to happen by some means, and that means is obviously a hard cap.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Shoreline

[stevkrause 1,247]

May I ask which prominent teams spent themselves into bankruptcy prior to the cap?

yes, I was thinking the same thing... care to point out who?

[stevkrause 1,247]

Just like to throw out there that the more rules and loopholes you put into the CBA the more possibility of the system getting abused in bad ways. Imo, the league is still growing into the hard cap and with the upper limit no longer growing by leaps and bounds you’ll see how well a team can draft, keep/cut talent, and bring in new players as necessary. Now, teams that bump against the ceiling knowing that next year it’s going to raise don’t have that luxury.

Giving home discounts to the cap hit would, imo, encourage teams to tank for a few years to attempt to stock up on talent with early draft picks and become a cup contender. Not really drafting well, but just hoping continuous top 5 picks will pan out. It’s not going to magically make teams put money into scouting and build (or get really lucky) from middle and late round picks.

Now let's glance at the other league's systems shall we...

NFL: Has a hard cap with large loopholes that are so far working due to a ridiculous amount of revenue. They're looking to be capless in 2010 and may have a strike/lock-out in 2011 due to labor issues. (player's salaries and medical benefits being to major sticking points)

NBA: Their soft cap hasn't really fixed anything. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. More and more teams are having financial issues as well.

MLB: Outside of Tampa Bay, it's largely a league of have and have-nots when it comes to money.

Oh... and when was the last time a team that loaded with FAs in the summer won the cup that season? Players moving from team to team became the inevitability of FA.

Edit: And the league already has revenue sharing in place and it isn't really helping clubs like Phoenix with it's debt.

I hate the other league comparison, because they're not the same in any way, it's apples to oranges...

teams that purposely "tanks" a few years to "stock up on picks"... are you f'in kidding me? that would NEVER happen and plus... a top 5 pick doesn't guarantee a player will be good, or good right away and if a team REALLY want to blow a decade of futility for one or 2 years of power, let them have at it... because they would lose other guys in the process and this isn't the NBA (once again, they are different leagues) one or 2 stars doesn't win a cup - it takes a TEAM.

[vangvace 12]

I hate the other league comparison, because they're not the same in any way, it's apples to oranges...

teams that purposely "tanks" a few years to "stock up on picks"... are you f'in kidding me? that would NEVER happen and plus... a top 5 pick doesn't guarantee a player will be good, or good right away and if a team REALLY want to blow a decade of futility for one or 2 years of power, let them have at it... because they would lose other guys in the process and this isn't the NBA (once again, they are different leagues) one or 2 stars doesn't win a cup - it takes a TEAM.

Ah, but they are. Both the NFL and NHL have hard caps with loopholes the size of Alaska. Meanwhile, the NBA and MLB have soft caps that don't assist it's own clubs financially stability and has disparity between the have and have-nots.

I wouldn't be so sure about teams purposefully tanking for draft picks. A bad head coach hire here, a FA lost there, a trade that doesn't pan out and your in the s***ter. Even though they didn't do it on purpose imo, the Pens rise is an excellent example what could happen. Of course, so could the Oilers The scrutiny that possible Top5 prospects go though today is nothing compared to a decade ago and busts are more unlikely and may be worth the gamble to a GM or two imo. Formerly underachieving team, a couple young superstars bring in the revenue, and a competent coach and you have yourself a Cup Cinderella that can be around for a while with a homegrown cap discount.

[Guest Shoreline]

May I ask which prominent teams spent themselves into bankruptcy prior to the cap?

None. However, teams including the Dallas Stars and the St. Louis Blues, one of the more prominent spending teams at the time, were headed down that path pre-CBA. This is one of the major basis' for the hard cap which is 100% justifiable. Had it actually went to bankruptcy then viable teams would have been lost about the same time as small market teams given the major losses they were operating at. Math/Finance 101 really. The sort of collapse the NHL would have underwent if the cap were not implemented was certainly noted. As a league it could not afford this many viable teams to fold.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Shoreline

[stevkrause 1,247]

Ah, but they are. Both the NFL and NHL have hard caps with loopholes the size of Alaska. Meanwhile, the NBA and MLB have soft caps that don't assist it's own clubs financially stability and has disparity between the have and have-nots.

I wouldn't be so sure about teams purposefully tanking for draft picks. A bad head coach hire here, a FA lost there, a trade that doesn't pan out and your in the s***ter. Even though they didn't do it on purpose imo, the Pens rise is an excellent example what could happen. Of course, so could the Oilers The scrutiny that possible Top5 prospects go though today is nothing compared to a decade ago and busts are more unlikely and may be worth the gamble to a GM or two imo. Formerly underachieving team, a couple young superstars bring in the revenue, and a competent coach and you have yourself a Cup Cinderella that can be around for a while with a homegrown cap discount.

I guess that's where I don't have a problem with it... I'm all for dynasty's and think sports need them more today...

[stevkrause 1,247]

None. However, teams including the Dallas Stars and the St. Louis Blues, one of the more prominent spending teams at the time, were headed down that path pre-CBA. This is one of the major basis' for the hard cap which is 100% justifiable. Had it actually went to bankruptcy then viable teams would have been lost about the same time as small market teams given the major losses they were operating at. Math/Finance 101 really. The sort of collapse the NHL would have underwent if the cap were not implemented was certainly noted. As a league it could not afford this many viable teams to fold.

right, but that's in a cap wide open world... this would not remove the cap, simply allow teams to go over when they've earned it and deem it viable... and ALSO, this puts more money into those smaller teams... win-win.

You could even add a further stipulation, limiting the number of "franchise" players that a team can do this with... therefore, limiting a cap break even more... but still allowing a team to hold onto it's 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th round picks that THEY turned into NHL'ers because of a great system...

[vangvace 12]

I guess that's where I don't have a problem with it... I'm all for dynasty's and think sports need them more today...

Dynasty's are all well and good, but should be earned and maintained. Throwing up loopholes to keep players doesn't do that imo. Dynasty's are also about what's on the front of the jersey not the back.

Personnally, I would rather see the first round of the playoffs be a in division matchup to bring back rivalries, but I think having rivals throughout the league more important.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Dynasty's are all well and good, but should be earned and maintained. Throwing up loopholes to keep players doesn't do that imo. Dynasty's are also about what's on the front of the jersey not the back.

Personnally, I would rather see the first round of the playoffs be a in division matchup to bring back rivalries, but I think having rivals throughout the league more important.

I think players most certainly make dynasties... think of the Oilers of the 80's, Habs of the 60's and Islanders of the 70's... every single one of those dynasties, you can connect to a core group of 5-7 or so players...

[titanium2 867]

In the NBA, you can sign a player to the veteran's minimum and it won't count against the cap. I wish the NHL would allow for this. The Wings probably could've retained Hossa had this option been available.

[stevkrause 1,247]

In the NBA, you can sign a player to the veteran's minimum and it won't count against the cap. I wish the NHL would allow for this. The Wings probably could've retained Hossa had this option been available.

how do you figure? we don't have anyone that is, or would be making a veteran's minimum...

[titanium2 867]

how do you figure? we don't have anyone that is, or would be making a veteran's minimum...

In the NBA, the veteran's minimum is 1.3mil. That's what I meant. I should've specified. It's interesting though since the NBA's cap is only like one or two million higher than the NHL's.

Edit: I forgot. This whole thing was inspired by news of Ben Wallace possibly coming to Detroit and taking the veteran's minimum. He's 34 and he qualifies for it somehow.

Edited July 15, 2009 by titanium2

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

mainly because Basketball put it in and all that did was circumvent the cap.

The Celtics for example have 0 cap space, but are signing players left and right because the fee is right.

For instance if they sign a guy for 2 mil over the cap it is 2 mil to the player and 2 more to the PA.

For an org with as much money as the C's that means nothing.

Especially when you throw in the rules with Veteran minimum offers that count differently.

Anything the NBA does the NHL should stay away from, like the lottery!

Actually i would like to see the NHL implement something that balances the top picks between the conferences. The East blows and gets the top pick almost every year. Why should misrun organizations like the Lightning keep benefiting from stinking? That would have meant the Avs got to pick first this year, but so be it. Some kind of rotation/lottery is in order. The NBA did that so teams wouldn't tank on purpose to get the top pick - makes sense. I hate that bad organizations benefit from stinking and teams like the Wings never get a top pick....but hey I'm a Wings fan I'm biased, I admit.